their own. without nato, the rebels would lose. >> we will leave this program at this time. you can see the remarks anytime an hour video library. house members are about to come in for morning our speeches. the will gavel back in at 2:00 p.m. and go back into recess at that time and start the legislative business at 4:00 p.m. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. september 12, 2011, i hereby appoint the honorable michael k. simpson to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore:

pursuant to the order of the house of january 5, 2011, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leader leaders for morning hour debate. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, pursuant to the permission permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on september 9, 2011, at 1:43 bm. that the senate passed, senate 1239. with with best wishes i am sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 2:00 p.m. today.

p.m. eastern on c-span.org and we will reach their the debate on c-span radio. watch more video of the candidates and see what political reporters are saying and track the latest contributions with the website for campaign 2012. it helps you navigate the political landscape with twitter feeds and facebook updates. links to c-span media partners

in the early primary and caucus states. all at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> president obama is going on the road for his jobs plan. there is a round table on this morning's court washington journal" to talk about the president's plan. host: josh bivens is an economist with the economic public policy in tier -- institute and kevin hassett from the economic policy -- from the american enterprise institute. how do you think this would help or not help the economy? josh, what part of the president's plan to you think would do the most to help the economy? guest: i think a lot of it is very well that spend money, actually. i am happy with the composition.

we have a mammoth unemployment crisis in this country right now. i think the second most effective thing in terms of bang for buck, how many jobs it will create, is the infrastructure spending that is part of it. and then i think the less effective bids will still do something, the payroll tax cuts. we have had a payroll tax cut for the past year, 2%. this extends it on the employee side, and it also adds cuts to the employer side, and benefits to hiring. it will not do nothing. whether that is the maximum bang for the but you can get, i am not sure. host: the items you just mentioned, the you think those of the least effective elements of the plan? guest: least effective big-

ticket items. that i think it's probably the least effective. it does not take a lot of money. it pays for itself in 10 years. it is fine, in my book. it is not crowding out the shelf. the least effective big-ticket item in there is the employer side payroll tax. host: the president is calling for two and $45 billion in tax cuts, $140 billion in infrastructure and aid to states. $62 billion in unemployment insurance in the hiring -- and hiring. kevin hassett, what is the biggest thing about this plan for you? guest: we are close to going into recession again, and starting with an unemployment rate that is much higher than the last time we started going downward. it is a question of how we should act.

some of the president's ideas are good, some of them are not. we're but disagree about the details come up but -- host: what was your initial reaction to the president's speech? he did mention some items that had some republican support. guest: it was actually a big disappointment. i was so disappointed about his speech, i could not blog. it is not that he is not trying. i am stan that his heart is in the right place, but the fact is we are ignoring the big problems and kicking the can down the road. there are big problems that we need to fix in order to restore certainty and a climate of optimism in our country. having athat we're weak recovery because we have got all these big problems we are not addressing, and the idea that we can ignore the big

problems and take a shot of caffeine and get through this year is something we have tried. the problem is the hangover when the caffeine wears off keeps coming back, and that is happening in part because we are ignoring our big problems. the thing that really upset me is that they really did things that need to be addressed. i got so annoyed i could soblog. ready ideas that we have all thrown away -- our infrastructure is terrible. remember the bridge in minneapolis that collapsed. the fact is that i think the average bridge in the united states is about the same age. there is an enormous amount of investment that we have to make not necessarily to stimulate the economy but to keep our economy

running because our infrastructure is falling apart. that is a part that i think -- that is a waste of money. that is the one part that is consistent with the theme of going after a long term problems because we have a long-term problem that our infrastructure is inadequate, old, indicating. host: josh bivens with the economic policy institute, what do you think about the president saying -- what you think about what kevin is say about missing the mark on big problems? guest: to me what is driving new the hut and a plumber rate is -- is simply a shortfall demand. we know why that shortfall in demand is happening. we had it $8 trillion housing bubble that burst. all the construction of new homes that went on during the bubble has collapsed. what we really need is something

to step up and provide the spending until households burden by all their debt that they took on in 2000 have worked that off, feel comfortable, businesses feel comfortable spending up again. it is not a shot of caffeine that will lead to an inevitable hangover, it is spending until the private sector has their balance sheets in order. it is not big enough to fill in the shortfall from the housing bubble bursting, but i think it attacking the fundamental problem. host: let's get right to the phones. herman found, minnesota. bob joins us from the democrat'' line. caller: thank you for taking my call. one of the biggest thing is you could not do to stimulate the economy it -- one of the biggest thing is you can do to stimulate the economy is put money back in the hands of the consumer. if you could do something to the

great social security, you would take money out of the hands of the common consumer there. that money has been earned. it is not a give-away program. what it is is an investment program. we invested the money into show security. -- into social security. we deserve to get it back. it is not a bailout for the wealthy taxpayers. the third thing i think that could be done is they need to get a handle on the speculating, as far as fuel. fuel is one of the things that costs money. in everything that you buy, delivered by truck, train, or ship, fuel is a part of it.

the speculators are taking money out of the pockets of the common consumer because if you have to pay that much for fuel, you are not buying that many more items. that's my comment. host: kevin hassett is nodding his head. what do you think? guest: getting money in the pocket of consumers is an idea that is consistent with what josh is saying. we need to stop thinking about money in the pockets of consumers, and again, one of the biggest problems is that if you look at past recoveries, 70% or 80% of fluctuation in the business cycle comes from firms investing in capital and inventories. in this cycle, the recovery of investment has been really, really slow in the u.s. a big reason is that we of the highest taxpayers now, and we

are not a place where you want to start a new plan. what we need to on social security, i think bob raises a good point. he raises an excellent point. people like us who are a few decades off from retiring, we probably do not expect to get our full benefit as promised. host: josh bivens? guest: i think money in the pockets of consumers is about -- i think there's some truth to that. i would like to see that money even more targeted.

part of the original recovery act, there is a weekly bonus and the think that would be a good thing to replicate. people are cash-strapped. i think he has a good point in terms of -- the spike in gas prices we saw earlier was a drag on the economy. i do not think there is too much you can do in the short term. i do not know how much speculation it is driving up the prices. if you look at investment in equipment and software, it is quite good. the idea that they're not willing to invest -- it has gone

from about 6.9% of gdp to almost 8.5%. i think that is doing ok. it is performing pretty well. thatot sold on businesses are to riveted on the argument. listen tos take a president obama in his speech the other night talking about his desire to see the 2% payroll tax reduction extended. >> pass the jobs bill and the typical working family will get -- $1500 willut go into your pocket. this expands on the tax-cut democrats and republicans already passed this year. if we refuse to act, middle class families will get hit with a tax increase at the worst

possible time. we cannot let that happen. host: president obama speaking before a joint session of congress, laying out his plan for the economy. we're speaking this morning about that plan and talking to two economist about that plan. kevin hassett is with the american enterprise institute. let's talk about the tax cut proposals. $175 billion. guest: i think that the payroll tax cut is something -- in part you can say lookout it is working. the fact is that milton friedman talks about why these are bad policies. there is a great review of this argument in the journal of

economic literature. if we give you more money this year and take about next year, there are two problems. if it affects you, we'll have more growth this year, but next year we'll have an equal and opposite the fact. the net has to be negative. if it does not affect you, it's just kind of a waste. you should anticipate that. josh is right. there are people in this economy that are living hand to mouth. if you target tax cuts to people who most need them, the proposal like the president -- i do not think this is a wise policy. host: looking at the numbers.

host: what is your reaction, josh bivens? guest: of all of those tax cuts, i think the payroll tax cut is the one i would take. i think it would probably be all of those things together. if elected the tax cut on the employer side, -- if you look at the tax cut on the employer side, you boost wages for workers. that takes awhile and probably doesn't happen too quickly when unemployment is over 9%. you're giving a windfall to businesses in the short-term. their problem is they do not

want to invest because there are not too many customers coming in the door. this will not solve the real issue. cutting one side is worth trying. there is a crowded for additions to payroll as part of it but that may have some bang for the buck. host: explain that to us. guest: if you add new bodies, there is a credit and it is capped at a relatively high amount. so most firms will get the full amount of the credits. a lot of this stuff is tempered and has to be paid for it down the road. we are hopefully in a temporary slump. host: phoenix, arizona.

laura. caller: i agree with both of the economists. it seems to me that it is a bigger picture -- the economy is so complex. i do not see enough research from one administration to the next to allow the incoming administration to make wise decisions on the current events. they changed every day and they change quickly. i and stan it is complex -- i understand it is complex. our leaders have other agendas. it gets depressing.

if we're going to make jobs, we need to provide incentives were those jobs that are created are going to then produce as good or create an export that will in the end pay for the payroll tax cut or to the employer and to the employee. i hope that was understandable. i do not see enough leadership or research or enough of the things being done with real fought in them. guest: i think that laura is right and of both parties are guilty of this. the thought that is not happening in the white house right now and the thought that needs to happen is the recognition that it is common after a big financial crisis, for to take a long time to dig

your way out. a colleague gave a paper at the jacksonville fed conference where they looked at the history of other countries who have had serious crises and found it is typical within a decade of a financial crisis the unemployment rate is about double the start of the crisis. i will blog always. for me, we need to recognize that have a long-term problem and to address it, we have to go after the big things. even if we do gin up the will comethe handovgover anytime of slow-growth. look at japan.

the amount of government spending that they tried it was historic. but it never really dug their way out because they were ignoring the big problems. what is missing is some sort of historical perspective because we are in something that we are not experienced in a long time. host: the ability to look back and to put it in perspective -- are the conversations happening at a level that takes into account what is happened previously in other countries? guest: probably not. but i think that history is pretty mixed. countries that have seen a financial crisis take a long time to recover. the reason why they take so long to recover is because they do

not take aggressive enough measures. a failure of the political system. in this country, we have outsourced fighting to the fed. we thought they will adjust short-term interest rates. the rest of the government does not have to do anything. the fed's ability to fight the recession has been overwhelmed. now we need other things. a large package like the recovery act. the fact that countries that have seemed a financial crisis take a long time to recover is more of a political crisis. we're still not doing the big

enough stuff. the historyaware of that kevin is talking about but i have a different take on it. caller: i hear a lot of the blame game going on this morning. in the last 10 years, we have had 54,000 -- go overseas. then we turn around and give them tax breaks. then we talk about should the rich be taxed? they have too much money to play with. they are thinking about their pocketbooks. host: what do you think? guest: we have not mentioned globalization in here and we

probably should not talk about the economic without talking about that. i think there's a real problem in the united states. we have chronic trade deficits. basically people cutting back on spending on everything. imports are part of that. it is growing again and a think that is a drag on growth. make exports be an engine of growth. look at those countries -- tell them to revalue their currency. china is the biggest example. we have a policy lever that could create some jobs. make u.s. exports more

competitive. that should be addressed. guest: i think the caller is correct. if you think about our tax code, we have companies that face the following deal from us. if you separate subsidiary in a foreign country as a low tax rates, you can transfer your profits through that subsidiary and not have a lot of profits here in the u.s. it encourages people to move things offshore to avoid u.s. tax. it's a stupid policy. we need to address the whole thing, not just lower the rate. we should not be surprised if that is the deal we are offering people, that they are

doing it overseas. we're subsidizing these guys so look at all the jobs overseas. let's ignore that and try to stimulate consumption right now. we have to lose that attitude if we want to turn this country around. host: we have some numbers from "congressional quarterly." host: how do you change those numbers, or how do you react to those specific numbers? are we talking about a massive stimulus? guest: i would have a fiscal consolidation where we get the

deficit in order but we do things like change the indexing formula for social security so that we get a smaller benefit when we retire. tried to have long-term fixes for medicare and medicaid to pull in some money. and use that money. fix the individual side, which is a total mess. i think that a professor at berkeley and i wrote a book and said if we had a big fundamental reform that was revenue neutral and at the same -- as the current code, you could buy between half a% and 1% over a decade growth. that is about the scale of the shortfall because of the financial crisis.

that's the kind of big thinking we need to have to turn things around. host: what do you make of those numbers? guest: construction is very large. the housing bubble. how broadbased it is. people often focus on construction and occasioned you hear that the real sector is getting all the jobs and jobs are being lost everywhere -- the rail sector. manufacturing is a very cyclical sector. if we have enough spending to support a recovery, manufacturing will disproportionately affected. allon't have the policy

pointing in the same direction. if you do nothing about exchange rates -- it will be nice to see all policy levers pulled am pointing in the same direction. host: steve on the democrats line. caller: i think the jobs package should have been about $2 trillion or more. get the infrastructure fix, all the roads and bridges. if you take and hire people and get a green jobs going, because we need to get off of oil and stuff like that, because it is not doing the environment and the good. these people that holler about

people making money, i think that's so silly, saying you need to get their wages down to what we're making down in the real world. you need to be making more money and you need to start taxing these rich a lot more so they will start spending their money here instead of overseas. host: $2 trillion compared to the president's plan. what would that do, $2 trillion into the economy? guest: it would be hard to spend that much in a year. i am on the high end of what the economy should be getting in terms of fiscal spending. host: what is the number? guest: there is about it $1 trillion output gap.

that is if all the people were back to work. a well-designed stimulus package, probably about $700 billion. so $2 trillion is even higher than i wanted. $2 trillion spread over 10 years to give the economy a boost, that would be great. look at the infrastructure gap. how much money which should be spending and paying for it in the long run, then i think $2 trillion would be a reasonable number. but $2 trillion in one year is more than what i think the

economy needs. guest: steve has a strong argument. we have that a debt downgrade. we have a massive deficit. the debt on by foreigners is about 20% higher than a was historically for the typical latin american countries that default on its debt. even if you think the $2 trillion would buy you at gdp, the stimulus will go away and we will be stuck with the big problems. that is why i would not do it. host: james asks on twitter. at whitehouse.gove

a detailed sketch. host: we are hearing from the a.p. that the president will speak in the rose garden and ask for rate swift passage of his jobs bill. he may be in the rose garden to send that jobs plan to congress. rick from michigan, republican. caller: your guests represent two different points of view. i do not want one guy to speak to me at all.

the one problem in the government is the federal reserve. we have been under the thumb of the reserve from 1913. these people are running the economy. obama cannot do anything. the congress has given up their constitutional responsibility. we need to redo this whole thing. the system is broke. we pay a gasoline tax. that is supposed to pay all the road costs. we're paying too much tax as it is. we need to eliminate the federal income tax.

the others need to be looked at. we have to look at the monetary system. if you print another $447 billion -- we are broke. host: does get reaction. what did you think about his comments? -- let's get reaction. guest: he doesn't want me to talk because i do not agree with this point of view. one of the big problems of the federal reserve is that it is not doing as much as it could be doing to fight the recession. you have ben bernanke doing a lot of pretty aggressive moves.

he has not done big quantitative easing before. the measure should be, are they effective enough? i would like to see the federal reserve even more aggressive. it. pretty happy we have t host: green bay, wisconsin. caller: i have no confidence at all in this jobs plan. we tried this and it did not take. they are temporary positions. will we need to do is cut the tax rate, the federal income tax rate on manufacturing companies to zero. you just think about this. you go to a carl lot that

cost $21,000 that will be selling for $15,000, $16,000. if we do not do this now, we will be in trouble. guest: i agree that some kind of big tax measure combined with other things is what we need right now. the example sound like ronald address old radio where this goes into the price of bread and if you cut the price of bread, you lower the cost. that was onetime tax policy was explained that appealed to voters. i think we're in deep trouble and we have to take deep action. i want to talk about the fed.

josh is fun to talk to. the thing about the threat of wanted to say -- the thing about the fed i wanted to say, we do understand what the criticism is. they have expose us to inflationary risk. it has pumped all the reserves into the banks. this is like pushing on a string. the reserves become money. if it becomes out of hand, you get inflation. in amountey've taken of inflation risk. you cannot attribute that to the

fed. the fed has stimulated but they have not done anything that would create a constitutional crisis, in my mind. host: we have some information about what congress has done over the past four years to stimulate job growth. there was an economic stimulus plan. president obama came into office and there was the stimulus program that we covered here that cost over $787 billion . host: evarts the congress has taken -- efforts that congress

has taken. guest: the most effective things they have done, infrastructure spending works. there has been one criticism -- and itt shovel-ready takes too long to spend. we were pushing for infrastructure spending to be part of the stimulus package but we were told it was not timely enough. have extended unemployment for a long time. i think that is very effective. aid to distress people is very effective. it helps people get through a tough time. aid to state and local companies

is effective. those workers then have money to spend. those are the most effective things you can do in this type of environment. guest: we take it and we feel bad and we take it again. we have to stop and recognize our addiction and move on. host: jerry asks a philosophical question. host: how you respond to that? -- how do you respond to that? on a different were

network, i would say we disagree because josh is an idiot. it is the construction of the show that creates the appearance of mass and disagreements. if we were to list 20 topics, 16 of them would be close an four or 5 we would not. it is the four we're talking about right now. there's a lot of agreement that might be missed because we're saying lots of things all at once. i agree we should invest more in infrastructure. i agree that if we're going to in a money right now "ista "stimulus" -- those people are

needy. the unemployment rate is humongous. the big disagreement i sense -- that we can continue to ignore that and i don't think so. we can go in to the depths of why we have a disagreement. host: josh bivens? guest: i think he is right. we're disagreeing because we read the literature differently. i think the big disagreement is the diagnosis of what unemployment is so high today. a simple short fall in demand. other things are at work. i think you are in favor of work sharing. guest: there is one footnote in the president's presentation.

guest: kevin can explain it work sharing better. using unemployment funds to subsidize it shorter hours. you should collect a portion of unemployment when some of your hours get cut back. there is money in the plan for that. guest: jerry talked about the politics of it. if your attic think tank then what you're trying to do is -- if you are at the think tank, you try to make the world better. you'll take it from any politician who will do that. . nepeople think a.i. is more

right-leaning. obama embraced the policies that i have been pushing which caused the celebration. we want to change policy. we want to to help enact laws with our research. host: kevin hassett is with the american enterprise institute. he served as an advisor to the john mccain campaign. he worked as an economist for the board of governors back in the 1990's. he was a policy consultant during the administrations of george h. w. bush and president clinton. josh bivens is an economist

economic policy institute with the economic policy institute, epi.com. he is been an economist since 2002. we are talking about the president's jobs plan. there is details on the website. we will be seeing the bill today, according to news reports. daniel rights on twitter -- let's go to daytona beach, florida, to hear from louise. caller: i wanted to talk about president obama's jobs plan. jeb bush eliminated the tangible

tax on stocks and bonds which benefited only the wealthy people. it cost $1.8 billion a year in revenue. those lost dollars were made up of cutting programs for the elderly, the poor, infrastructure. we got 81 ser school tax break for school supplies. it saved us $18 a year. we have a multimillionaire turned governor, wrecks scott, who rates government and he wants no federal money from the jobs program. we're hurting so bad for jobs here in florida. wages are low. everything is geared to please rich retirees. balance the budget and the

deficit. reinstate the intangible tax on the wealthy. it is a nuisance tax. miss it.l not even now s guest: i am not aware of the nuisance tax. there is a problem with the debate in the short run. we have unemployment which is too high. we need someone to step up and do the spending needed to get unemployed people back to work. we have a deficit that is projected to be too large for most economist's comfort and how best to close that gap. some people think we'll have the long run deficit problem.

if the discussion is how best to close those projected gaps, i agree a lot with the caller. we need to think about who was benefit from economic growth and take into account. in the short term, we should be trying to make the deficit bigger over the next year or two, because that means more spending power in the economy. deficits are supposed to hurt you by driving up interest rates. the government is still borrowing at historically cheap interest rates. the private sector is starved for more spending. bigger deficits in the next year or two. let's take into account who can afford to pay and who cannot. host: do you think we're

fighting a pr war? there is talk in the congress about deficit and spending and about fighting debt. guest: people who say, "i want the deficit bigger" -- that is the ticket out of respectable debate. there are plenty of people to blame for that. it is a problem that when the economy was still very soft, to o many calls to members shifted to the problem of long run deficits. i think that was a premature shift. the economy suffered because of that. it is a big pr to get people to

realize that a smaller deficit is not always what the country needs. in fact, it needs the direct opposite. guest: i will give some pr advicet to josh. if we look at the expense is the government will have, we have to pay for those. do we pay for them now or later? maybe you have some room for growth. in the end, we have to pay for what we spend. give us a big deficit now combined with things that happen in the future so we can get back to it sustainable level of debt to gdp. if you do that, in and the

end, it will all work out, then people will not throw you out of the conversation. guest: our organization, epi, has such a plan. we stabilize debt to gdp ratios. there have been competing voices out there that talked about lowering the deficit no matter what. people sit check it out if interested. host: alexandria, virginia. caller: i will be brief. we pay all the deficits the day after the sun explodes, right?

if we were to spend any money, it would need to be spent on the money who are unemployed because they are the most likely to spend. a previous caller said that it is complicated. politicians have made it much more complicated. if we were going to try to reform the tax code, what will prevent the politicians trying to tweak it and tweak it and so we'll have a 7000-page tax code again? guest: there was a piece in "the wall street journal" 15 years

ago where he talked about tax code dynamic. the cynical view would be politicians finance their campaign by selling favors. then we have a messy code and it is hard to sell anything to anybody. happens, we have a tax reform. i would have to say that that looks like -- they did sweep out the stables i. we might be ready for tax reform politically, not because we need want economically. we have reached that point again were the code is so complicated that people who want

to sell favors will of a hard time doing that. host: a breakdown of the president's plan. host: let's listen to the president speaking in his jobs speech on thursday about school, transportation, and infrastructure projects. >> will modernize at least 35,000 schools. we will put people to work right now in classrooms all across this country. we will rehabilitate homes and businesses hit hardest by foreclosures. it will jump-start thousands of transportation projects all across the country. host: do you think it will be effective?

guest: it will put people back to work. the big criticism is if it does not happen next month, it's not worth doing. when these projects come on line, it will be a big help to the job market. you get the short run benefit of more people working in the long run benefit of a better economy. guest: i have not seen enough of the proposals. but this is a solid one. and infrastructure bank could find public-private partnerships, help municipalities raise money. in canada, they have invested all lot in public as private partnerships to things like infrastructure, lending.

i think it is a solid idea. it leads a path to restoring some solemn say. -- solvency. raising an enormous amount of money. moving towards be more rational about the way we run transportation is a defensible thing. i've advocated a federal reserve of infrastructure. why is with highways to no worker in west virginia but the bridges are collapsing along the mississippi river? politicians have to much of a say. -- too much of a say. host: let's go to georgia. perry, welcome.

i think we lost perry. let's move on to tracy. caller: good morning. three things. i cannot believe that kevin called milton friedman a great thinker. ask the people in south america about that. the jobs plan should be bigger. tax cuts to not create jobs. if they did, we would be in a boom right now. move on with the tax cuts. host: do you think the stimulus the president put ford should have been bigger and more focused on infrastructure? caller: yes, i do. and i think it worked. host: tracy says the stimulus

worked. this is what matt says on twitter. guest: we have a couple of things. the stimulus did not work. i do not think it was the correct medicine. there was no evidence it was harmful. it probably helped some. friedman was a good guy. we have tried tax cuts already. those who want to get their google heated up this morning can go back and checked. i had a piece that opposed the bush tax cuts. my main concern was the kind of things we have been talking about today.

the u.s. has a weird corporate tax system. i thought there was a serious problem with the bush tax cuts. they give up a lot of money but not used the money to fix the problems. when do we avoid the long term problems or try to get away with ignoring things? i would say the bush tax cuts were the moment when things began to get out of hand. right-wing and left-wing economists would listings you would want to change. we have tried tax cuts. president clinton tried to increase the corporate tax rates. that's the last corporate tax increase on earth. the average was about 40%.

now it is about 24%. we have not tried my medicine. the rest of the world has changed and so it is urgent we do so. guest: on the second package that was passed in 2009 -- most people forget the first one. i think the obama one was very effective. it created about 2 million to 4 million jobs. host: which led to a seen a bigger -- would you have liked to us in a bigger? guest: yes, absolutely. we probably will have to do more and more things to provide more

support to the economy. it it it could have been bigger or could have kept coming back to the problem of jobs. look at private sector forecasters. they are unanimous. it is created or saved 3 million jobs. people are skeptical about the stimulus package. they say move the economy. on the point about tax cuts, policy,t tried kevin's but we have cut taxes in a big way. the tax side, cut the amount of revenue the government is

collecting. at some point, i felt like a pervert policies by never going to be implemented -- i feel like perfect policies will never be implemented. host: this is the president on the corporate tax. >> that stance as a monument to special interest. we can't lower one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. our tax code should not give an advantage to companies that can afford the best connected lobbyists. host: kevin hassett, can you get behind that? guest: the rhetoric is good.

the treasury has been working on a tax reform proposal to go separate this thing we've been talking about. we subsidize firms to locate off shore so they can transfer profits there. there was a story that said we would see a plan in may, but we did not see the plan in may. they are coming out with a plan sometime soon. they are smart, come from people at the treasury, and i'm looking for to see what the plan is. the president's rhetoric is spot on. it changes the tax treatment of international activity and that could help things at home. host: josh bivens with the

economic policy institute, what do you think of that idea? guest: there is tons of room to make the tax code more efficient and more fair. i am not an expert on that. that is not an mike wheelhouse of interest -- that is not in my interest.elhouse of that requires a much more serious discussion. you can't make it revenue neutral and make a much more efficient and fair. host: michael in atlanta, republican call. caller: this request may seem ludicrous, but which to be willing to discuss the outcome if the u.s. placed a boycott on all countries for assembled products?

any country could ship parts and the u.s. could ship parts to be assembled in each country. thank you. guest: the idea out would be that we would let a foreign automaker ship all the parts here but then we would have to assemble them. that would introduce an enormous inefficiency and would cost us a lot of jobs. i can remember the guy at heritage committee proposal -- outlaw taxicabs and make everybody go round in rickshaws. there would be slower, but there would be a lot of rickshaw drivers. require everybody to go around in a rickshaw. i think this assembly idea weeks of that -- reeks of that.

we're all better off that we can import chinese clothing because the alternative is that we can create jobs here home if we made our own clothing. but if i made my own clothing, it would not look as good. host: what do you think? guest: i think it is too sweeping. globalization is making it tough on lots of workers. i think we to think long and hard about who is winning and who's losing. es.re are cleaner fix i would go back to my exchange rate issue. most trade is probably more parts than assembly. i am sure will bring over some

fully assembled cars. i'm not sure how effective it would be. host: youngstown, ohio, kay on our democrats line. caller: i never hear anyone speak of the devastation in this world. you think of katrina, the fires in texas, the floods, hurricanes -- there is so much devastation. there is not enough people collect all these jobs. bridges and roads that have been destroyed, some by nature. host: is there a way to get americans back to work rebuilding america? guest: that is true.

we have not mention that. communities should be made whole. we should make those communities whole. today we can make them all and help the overall economy. we should probably say more but i take it as a given that that's something we should do. guest: the most recent hurricane that went through in washington, d.c. -- we had eight minor hurricane experience. it was astonishing what happened up in new england. the covered bridge where used to go swimming just washed away. there are people that have those things happen to them and very often we forget. in terms of policy, that is no

place where josh and i are in agreement. you never know where disaster will strike. every town -- they hopefully will not get a disaster except for every100 years. week to look at -- we need to look at how the government will respond. host: kevin hassett is th host: we're talking about the president's proposal to boost job than the economy. the president plans to send that the congress. let's take a look at the numbers. since we're talking about jobs and jobless americans come here is what a labor department says

about who is unemployed. 8% is the on employment rate for women. 9% for men. frances, independent line. caller: hi, the morning. thank you for having me on -- hi, good morning. thank you for having me on. i just want to say, the infrastructure and the buildings from all the floods and tornadoes -- this is all jobs. i agree with the previous caller.

we have the resources and manpower. we have the labor. everybody needs jobs and stuff. the rest of it, the unemployment -- i am sure there are people that have to have unemployment that cannot participate in the work of art we have available. fine. for the life of me, i cannot understand or even reason why we would allow the tax cuts to have gone on for as long as they have gone on. and they insisted on tax cuts through 2/13, when we had a war that wasn't paid for -- two wars that we did not have paid

for. we had a drug prescriptions that we did not -- the drug prescriptions that we did not pay for. we had storms, we had katrina down here, we had tornadoes, floods, irene, all that stuff. we have a deficit and we are losing jobs. that should have never taken place. let host: get a -- host: let's get a response. josh bivens. guest: absolutely. we should mobilize whatever forces we need. host: she was concerned about the bush tax cuts. she thinks that is the wrong direction. guest: i would agree with that. i never agreed with the bush tax cuts. at the end of 2010, there was the compromise struck between the obama administration and

republicans in progress for the two-year extension -- in congress for the two-year extension. in exchange, there is the extension of unemployment insurance for 2011 and the payroll tax cut. i do not know where i stand on the wisdom of that deal. i have a lot of sympathy for it, coming from someone who thinks that unemployment insurance and apparel tax cut did provide some support for the economy -- and the payroll tax cut did provide some support for the economy. guest: i think the bush tax cuts were extended because there are a lot of democrats, even keynesians, who think that, if the economy is weak, it is a bad time for a tax hike. president obama said of he was running for office. -- said that while he was

running for office. you cannot have tax cuts if you're going to spend like drunken sailor, and that is what president bush did. he spent a crazy and he had tax cuts. that is not consistent. if you want on interest of tax rates, then you need to have not interested government -- non- intrusive tax rate, then you need to have non-intrusive government. we need to look at things like the infrastructure projects that we want to do and figure out what it costs to pay for that and make sure we have the tax code in place to do that. if you want tax cuts come you have to cut government spending. that provides and natural sort of political barrier to going to far. there are things like infrastructure that people value a lot. if you're going to cut that, you will have a hard time getting political momentum for your tax cuts. i think it is absolutely wrong. i also think that the

conversation about the bush tax cuts is too emotional. if i was a relationship counselor for democrats and republicans, i would tell them to stop talking about the bush tax cuts. president bush took the top rate from 39.6% to 35%. if you study economic models and you think about what happens if you go from 39.6% to 35%, it is really hard to get emotional about that. it is not really big chains. it is not like from 70% to 20%. -- really a big change, like what reagan did, from 70% to 28%. when we get involved in the stat -- they happen within the code that is indefensible. we need tax reform.

we should never talk about the bush tax cuts ever again. we should drop them and build a code that can mean the economy grow going forward. we will not put anybody's name going forward. host: let's hear about president obama's plan. money to hire teachers. >> the plan extends unemployment insurance for another year. if the millions of unemployed americans stop giving this insurance and stop using that money for basic necessities, it would be a devastating blow to this economy. democrats and republicans in this chamber have supported unemployment insurance plenty of times in the past. and this time a prolonged hardship, you should pass it right again. host: epi, what do you think -- josh bivens, what do you think that would do? guest: it would be good for people looking for jobs and it would be good for the economy.

on an. this money to people who, almost by definition -- on unemployment, this is money to people who, almost by definition, need to spend it. guest: when you give statistics of how terrible unemployment statistics are -- the long term unemployment problem causes the most long-term concern. i think we have taken a kind of cyclical problem of unemployment and watched it become a structural problem. as people are out of the work force for a long time, it gets harder to reconnect to them. what we should have done at the onset is switched to the work sharing thing, where employers are encouraged not to lay workers off. government will help

compensate when you cut the hours. if we had spent a lot of money on that, we would not necessarily need to have 99 weeks -- really extended unemployment insurance benefits. when -- it is subsidizing people to stay out of the work force for a long time. it is easy to get frustrated looking for a job. it is sad when you lose a job that pays x and you have to take a job that pays a lot less than x. a person who is over 60 take something like a 30% pay cut when they go back to work. having 99 weeks of unemployment insurance subsidizes the problem. we should have smart, modern unemployment insurance, like they have been the most of europe, that keeps people in the work force to begin with. now that we have this problem of long-term unemployment -- the one fact i would add, looking at

seniors, because people over 60, even 50, who have lost their jobs tend to be rehired more slowly. they are a big share of the unemployed. we have to come up with some ideas to get them back in and be attentive to the fact that a lot of them -- a disproportionate share -- our seniors who are maybe not ready to invest a year or two to invest in the work force. host: these are numbers from the congressional quarterly. let's hear about the obama talking about money to hire teachers. >> passed the jobs bill and thousands of teachers in every state will go back to work -- pass the jobs bill and thousands of teachers in every state will go back to work. while they are adding teachers

in places like south korea, we are laying them off in droves. it is not fair to our kids. it undermines their future and our is. it has to stop. pass this bill and put our teachers back in the classroom where they belong. host: kevin hassett, what do you think about the idea of getting teachers money for hiring them? guest: i support the federal government money going toward routers for -- vouchers so that they can pick out their own schools. a lot of states and municipalities have budget constraints that the federal government does not have. i think those budget constraints have been a good thing. they have kept them from getting into the bizarre shape that we're in, but they have had some negative effects.

they want to have bipartisan agreement for the stimulus. i would support spending money on charter schools. host: josh bivens, what do you think about that? here is something else to ping off of. what is the best way to get people back to work? what is the best technique? question.h biveit's a good i have a friend to look at the trend of state and local education unemployment over the past 10 years and over the past three. we are about 700,000 people below where that trend says we should be. what is going on here is a fiscal crisis and people being laid off in droves. i do not think that is the best

way to conduct our reasoned way to figure out how to make schools better. i think we have our real problem with government employment, especially state and local. anything that helps stop the hemorrhage is a good thing. i think the wpa style could be a very good thing and has been mostly ignored in a lot of the jobs packages so far. there has been some legislation about it. for things that are less capital-intensive, you could hire people to do the labor- intensive and valuable work of cleaning up communities. mowing yards, fixing houses that have been foreclosed on, making sure neighborhoods do not fallen to blight. the summer employment fourteens program in the original stimulus package is very cost -- a sort teenagers -- for teenagers

program in the original stimulus package is very cost- effective. guest: if they have hired people at the median wage, they would have created something like 23 million jobs. direct hiring is a much quicker way to get a job. we have this long term unemployment problem. it is probably a point in u.s. history where smart, direct hiring is probably something everybody should consider. it is a way to connect people back to the work force. host: cape coral, florida. dina, a republican caller. caller: thank you for the opportunity. i want to ask kevin, how are you against unemployment insurance? i find that hard to do. i do know that it does make it worse.

it makes the situation worse, however, there are so many millions of people, families, children just depending on it. it is hard for me to be against it. it is 99 weeks. does like everything else the government does, they do not do it well -- just like everything else the government does, they do not do it well, but it does help. it enables people to stay not working. .ost: let's leave it there we're almost out of time. are you concerned about what happens when people run out of money because they just cannot find a job? guest: sure. everybody is concerned about. work-sharing could help, because it slows job destruction. i am not against unemployment insurance at all. i just want to structure an

employment insurance in a way that does not subsidize the creation of a structural problem. if we need to get ex-thousand dollars to people when they lose their jobs, i am willing to give them their money and let them keep the money if they find a drop early. maybe we can negotiate how much that is. i think that this subsidizes long-term unemployment in a way that i am not comfortable with. i would much rather give people lump-sum on employment insurance so that they can actually shepherd their resources well in these difficult times and not subsidize the creation of a problem. host: the states with the highest unemployment are nevada with nearly 13%, california with 12%, michigan and south carolina with 10%, and rhode island at 10.8%. josh bivens, does this plan do anything to help homeowners?

guest: it is my understanding -- i do not know that is part of this or separate initiative -- but they are talking about having fannie mae, freddie mac ease the path to refinance or underwater mortgage holders -- for underwater mortgage holders. it is definitely something we should look for. guest: there is nothing really on the second answer -- housing sector. the typical financial crisis that was studied by my colleague -- he found that 10 years after the crisis, realistic prices were about 85% of what they were right before -- real-stestate prices were about 85% of what they were right before it. host: kevinin

>> last week president obama presented his jobs plan to a joint session of congress. earlier today the president spoke about some of his details of the plant in the rose garden. this is about 15 minutes. on thursday i would -- i told congress i would be sending them of bill. well, here it is. this is a bill that will put people back to work all across

the country. this is a bill that will help our economy in a moment of national crisis. this is a bill but is based on ideas from both democrats and republicans, and this is a bill that congress needs to pass. no games, no politics, no delays. and i am sending this bill to congress today, and asia pass it immediately. [applause] standing with me this morning are men and women who will be helped by the american jobs act. i am standing with teachers all across america teachers are being laid off in droves, which is unfair to our kids and undermines our future, and it is exactly what we should not be doing if we want our kids to be college ready and prepared for the jobs of the 21st century.

we have to get our teachers back to work. let's pass this bill. i am standing here with veterans. we have hundreds of thousands of brave, skilled americans who fought for this country. the last thing they should have to do is fight for jobs when they come home. let's pass this bill and put the men and women who serve this nation back to work we're standing here with cops, fire fighters whose jobs are threatened because states and communities are cutting back. this bill will keep cops on the beat and firefighters on call. let's pass this bill so that these men and women can continue protecting our neighborhoods like they do every single day. [applause] i am standing with construction workers. we have roads that need work all

of the country. our highways are backed up with traffic, airports are clogged, and millions of unemployed construction workers who can rebuild them, so let's pass this bill so road crews and diggers and papers in workers and all head back to the job site. -- and pavers and workers will all head back to the job site. [applause] and there are schools throughout the country that desperately need renovated. i got an a men over there. we cannot expect our kids to do their best in places that are literally falling apart. this is america. every kid deserves a great school, and we can give it to them. pass this bill to put construction crews back to work across the country preparing and modernizing at least 35,000 schools.

i am standing here with small- business owners. they know that while corporate profits have come roaring back, a lot of small businesses have not. they're still struggling getting the capital they need of support they need in order to grow. this bill cuts taxes for businesses that hire new employees and raise -- cut taxes. instead of just talking about america's job creators, let's actually do something for america's job creators. we can do that by passing this bill. [applause] there are a lot of other ways the american jobs act will help the economy. and before thousand dollar tax credit for companies that hire anyone that has spent more than six months looking for a job. we have to do more for those folks out and hitting the pavement every single day looking for work but have not found employment yet.

that is why we need to extend unemployment insurance and connect people to help upgrade their skills. this bill will help hundreds of thousands of disadvantaged young people find jobs next summer, jobs that will set the direction for their entire lives. and the american jobs act would prevent taxes from going up for middle-class families. if congress does that act come up just about every family in america will pay more in taxes next year. that would be a self-inflicted wound that our economy cannot afford right now. so let's pass this bill and get the typical working family a $1,500 tax cut instead. [applause] and the american jobs act will not add to the debt. it is totally paid for. i want to repeat that -- it is fully paid for. it will not add one dime to the

deficit. next week i am laid out my plan, not only to pay for this jobs bill but bring down the deficit further. it is a plan that lives by the same rules that families do. we it to cut out things we cannot afford to do in order to afford the things we really need. it is a plan where everyone has to pay their fair share. [applause] the bottom line is when it comes to strengthening the economy and balancing our books, we have to decide what our priorities are. do we keep tax old project tax " real companies or put teachers back to work? should we invest in education and technology and infrastructure? we know what is right. we know what will help

businesses start right here in stay here entire here -- and stay here and hire here. that is what we need to do to create jobs right now. [applause] i have to repeat something i said in my speech on thursday, there are some in washington who would rather settle our descent -- differences through politics than solve them right now. as we were walking out here we ever looking at one of the washington newspapers saying i do not know why we would want to cooperate with the obama right now, it is not good for politics. that is the attitude. yes, we have been for these things before, but i do not know why we would be for them right now?

the fact of the matter is the next election is 14 months away. the american people do not have the luxury of waiting for 14 months for congress to take action. [applause] folks are living week to week, paycheck to paycheck. they need action. the notion that the folks who would say we're not going to try to do what is right for the american people, because we do not think it is convenient for politics, we haven't seen that too much around here. that is exactly what folks are tired of. that is ok when things are going well, it is not ok at a time of greater need all over the country. these are not games we are playing out here. folks are out of work.

businesses are having trouble staying open. we have a world economy that is full of uncertainty right now. in europe, the middle east. some events may be beyond our control, but this is something we can control. whether or not we pass this bill, whether or not we get this done, that is something that we can control. that is in our hands. you hear a lot of folks talking about uncertainty in the economy. this is a bit of uncertainty that we could avoid come up by going ahead and taking action to make sure that we are helping the american people. if you agree with me, if you want congress to take action, then i will need everyone here

and everyone watching to make sure your voices are heard and help make the case. there is no reason not to pass this bill. this idea is bipartisan and common sense. it will make a difference. that is not just my opinion. independent economists have said it could add a significant amount to workers domestic product and could put people back to work all across the country. the only thing that is stopping it is politics. [applause] we cannot afford the same political games. not now. i want you to pick up the phone, send an e-mail, use an airplane sky writer, this of the fax machine, or you could just like write a letter, so long as you get the message to congress.

send me the american jobs act so i consign it into law. let's get something done. let's put this country back to work. thank you very much, everybody. that issue. [applause] [applause]

>> president obama talking about his $447 billion jobs plan earlier today. that bill is expected to make its way to congress later tonight. the house and senate are in session today. the house will double in briefly

at 2:00 with legislative work starting at 4:00. two bills on the calendar. any requested boats will be held at 6:30 eastern. -- votes. senate comes into session at 2:00. you can watch live senate coverage on c-span2. we want to tell you about a congressional 9/11 server restarted at 6:00 eastern. we're planning to bring you that live here on c-span. later this afternoon, more on the u.s. economy. and that is live at 2:30 this afternoon on c-span3. republican presidential candidates are getting together for a debate tonight. we what live coverage of reaction of the event at 10:00 eastern.

you can watch that live on c- span2. an hour later we will reach their the debate on c-span radio. watch more video of the candidates, see what political reporters are saying and track the latest campaign contributions was to stand website for campaign 2012. it helps you navigate the political landscape twitter feeds and facebook updates from the campaign. plus links to c-span media partners. it is all at c-span.org/ campaign2012. the house dabbles in at 2:00 for legislative business. until then, your phone calls from today's washington journal. on facebook and twitter. here is what this says.

the story goes on to look at some of the numbers and the breakdown of who paid capital gains, and the most that benefit to gain from the capital gains tax, and those that will gain from stocks, bonds, and it --

let us get right to the phones. larry is a democrat in mississippi. >> -- caller: that is a big problem. it shows how the country is going down the hill. the plans are being destroyed by the policy. there is no way our country can do better. it is sad that the responses -- they are saying the president is playing class warfare. class warfare is being played on the middle class. most of america does not understand.

is so sad. i cannot believe it. thank you. host: the story says most americans dend on a salary for their income. this act to attack wasngton post" story discussing the gap

between the rich and the poor. does it benefit the economy or do you think it hurts those that need more help from the federal government? the non-profit public religion as a suit shows americans by a 2 to 1 margin the wealthy should pay more taxes than the middle class. warren buffett has become one of the loudest proponents that the wealthy should pay more in taxes. what do you think? nancy is a republican collar. go ahead. caller: -- caller. go ahead. caller: people that p -- that

it paid a lot should pay accordingly. to pay the same percentage -- most of theeople, i do not know what they are thinking, but there are a lot of people struggling, because they are not so wealthy. there are a lot of people like me, my husband is on disability. i am a nurse and i work a lot to make sure we can maintain what we have. i hear there are so many -- i am a nurse. where are they taking the money from? medicare payments to the hospitals of doctors? do you know what they are doing now? it hospitadoes not get a good report from patients, they are going to pay you less. my brother-in-law is a doctor, my daughter is in medical school.

they have paid the medical people and the hospitals over the last several years, they have decreased it by 30%. cut say there'll be a 30% this year. wh is that going to do? you talk about the old drug- rich. even then, it hurts the little guy. -- ultra-rich. even then, it hurts the little guy. i believe the rich should pay their fair share. it may help the united states. it may help the government. think about if everybody was very wealthy. it brought to the government an extra $100,000 -- everybody that had a lot. think about how it may help. host: you may remember the recent op-ed from warren

buffett. he rides a this. -- he writes this. and he talksbout how his tax bill measures up compared to other americans, including people who work for hi he says that back in the 1980's and 1990's, taxes for the rich were much higher.

that is the way when buffett sees things in an op-ed piece in the "new york times" last month. caller: i am a retiree who is paying my pension. i gained my income for working on my le -- working all my life. imf paying most of my accounts, fruit -- am paying most of my accounts through capital gains and dividends. i am paying at the the full margin rate. those with taxable accounts, those that receive their income through inheritance or those that are richhrough a taxable

investment are paying at a marginal rate of only 50%. -- 15%. i do not think this is there. susie gorman, when she talks to people, she recommends that they only put money into iras and 41 ks up to the match amount and up to the-- a401k' match amount. host: let's go to san francisco where mike is a democratic collar. -- caller. caller: good morning. me on to melissa

in buffalo, new york. caller: i wanted to say to the previous caller, do not take any advice to susie orman, because she gave advice tthe octomom, and she is filing for bankruptcy. host: let's focus on the headline. do you think the tax policy is increasing the differences? caller: the tax system is broken as it is. it needs to be altered, because it is creating class warfare. what i agree with this the plan of herman cain that we need to have a 9% corporate tax, income tax and sales tax. i think something like that would even out of the playing field and allow everye to pay their fair share.

the rich already do pay a higher amount in taxes than in -- and everyone else without cut. they are getting more benefits in the end. they areble to put all of their funds into offshore account and hide away their money. host: let's go to griffin, independent in michigan. caller: i keep hearing about the secretary of warren buffett. i do taxes. i figure if the secretary has a standard deduction, she would have to have an income of 90,000 a year. that would equal his 17.4%. using the word secretary, which is 50,000 on average at best in michigan and using that as an example is very disingenuous. i would like to hear it stop.

host: we have a comment on twitter. echoing a the sentiments of a caller a moment ago. caller: i think it is unfair as far as the taxes that the rich pay, which is really nothing. i do not know if anyone has ever watched, because my grandkids watched the sweet 16 parties. it is nothing for them to spend $100,000 for their kids parties and then on top of that really expensive cars. the rich do not fight wars. their children do not go to fight wars. they should pay extra, because we are making them safe and

allowing them to have their free will and the expense of the lives. and they can appear -- paid $20,000 for a pair of shoes. it is unfair. that could be a salary for the middle class. we could live really good for $100,000 a year. it is so unfair. i do not know where they're conscious is. i do not see how they can sleep at night knowing that there are so many kids going hungry, people do not have places to live, people do not have medical insurance. they are spending so much on jury and keeping up their lifestyle. it is a shame -- on jewelry and keepin up their livestock. is a shame. host: is the tax policy fair the way it is? people are looking at ways to trim the deficit and cut

ending. a lot is on the table. there is a series called break away wealth. it is called a tax policy be to the gap between the rich and poor. here is a piece of it. let's go to tennessee, jim on our independent line. caller: i have two points i'd like to make. the article neglects to mention the fact tt the people that invest in capital gains have already earned the income and paid the tax. they will be paying tax twice

when they pay on capital gains. and the second and more important thing is, the article says nothing about making an impact that taxation has on those that benefit and those that pay. it requires the use of force all taxation is backed by enforcement laws. it is no different than extortion except the tax collector is granted immunity by the government. therefore it has a negative impact, because you are introducing forced into society. that has to have consequences. that is my point. host: scott, fla., independent. caller: i think it is the fact that some people are living beyond their means, and the they

are [unintelligible] that is the bigger issue than taxing people to points where they cannot become wildly and achieve the american dream. host: how does the tax policy affect that? caller: it is punitive to anyone who puts forth more effort, more logic, more time, and it punishes people for earning more. let's look at the distortion the "washington post."

>> you can see "washington journal" online @ c-span.org. the u.s. house is about to start at a legislative business will get underway at 4:00 p.m. one bill is dealing with the safety of judges. also, the senate this coming in at 2:00 p.m. at lawmakers will look at trade restrictions for me on our -- for myanmar, formerly known as burma. now live coverage of the u.s. house.

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. we give you thanks, oment god, for giving us another day. please tep us to use it well. we ask your blessing upon this assembly and upon all to whom the authority of government is given. they return to the capital reminded as are all americans that we honor that day by asserting the values of democratically elected representation. help them to meet their responsibilities during these days, to attend to the immediate needs and concerns of these times in our history. watch over this house and cause your blessing to be upon each member that they might serve all the people with sincerity and truth.

as we recall, a september 1210 years ago, when all the nations stood united, give them the wisdom and patience to place nation above party as they exercise their duties. may all that is done within the people's house this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson. mr. wilson: everyone, including the guests in the gallery, please join in. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain requests for

one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, 10 years ago in one of the most tragic moments of our country's history, terrorists hijacked commercial jet airliners to murder nearly 3,000 american people on america's soil. in this darkest hour, the people of our nation came together to grieve, mourn, and remind each other we are still one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. on this 10th anniversary of the september 11 attacks, i want to highlight now america's resolve that day was challenged but not broken. and the time since our nation has proven the resilience of the american people. the struggle to protect freedom and liberty is one that must be promoted both domestically and internationally. and our great nation has

answered the call. let us remember the first responders and our military that have served and are currently serving near and far to protect our freedoms here at home. i will always be grateful for those making a difference by defeating terrorists overseas, to protect american families at home. most importantly let's not forget the victims of the september 11 attacks, their families, the memories of that fateful day, and the constant challenges our country faces in winning the global war on terrorism. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: there being no further speakers, pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 4:00

you live here on c-span. together tonight for debate. we will have live coverage of reaction to these debates from what is known as the spin room. that is due to get underway at 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2 and online on c-span.org. an hour later, it will be on c- span radio. >> see what political reporters are saying in track the latest campaign contributions with c-span's website for campaign 2012. easy to use, it helps you navigate the political landscape

with twitter feeds and facebook updates from the campaigns, candidate bios, and links to c- span media partners in the early primary and caucus states. all at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history. this month, look for congress to continue federal spending and to november, including funding for recent natural disasters. keep tabs on the deficit committee as they formulate a plan to lower the debt. and follow the presidential candidates. it is all available for you on television, radio, on line, and on social media sites. we have the c-span video library, and we're on the road with our c-span at digital bus and local content vehicles, showing events from around the country. it is washington your way. the c-span networks, created by cable, provided as a public

service. >> according to a recent study by the pew hispanic center, hispanic household wealth fell by 66% from 2005 to 2009. the hud secretary and congressman charles gonzales take part in a panel discussion on how the hispanic population index the economy. panelists will talk about the unemployment rate, home ownership, and education. this is hosted by the congressional hispanic caucus institute, marking national hispanic heritage month. this hourlong form was on pbs. >> is one of our panelists put it, the rise of the latino youth population is one of the most important demographic trends reconfiguring every facet of our

opportunity had to continue to keep the promise into the next iteration of latino leaders. the impact of change in demographics and how they will impact this entire nation, as we refer to this critical imperative. the 2010 u.s. census documented that we all expected these numbers, that the hispanic population had grown nearly four times as fast as the population at large during the last decade. latinos accounted for more than half of the entire u.s. population growth for that time span. this growth not only occurred in the border states. it happened all over this country. [applause] in fact, we were a majority of the growth in 21 states. but on -- not all the news for

our community is so positive. recent studies have reinforced when many of us already knew, that the economic downturn has hit latinos harder than anyone else. we have lost their jobs, lost our homes, and lost most of the little wealth and savings that we had accumulated. the pew hispanic center's recent studies showed that hispanic household wealth fell by 66% from the years 2005 to 2009. about a third of hispanic households, 31%, had zero or negative net worth in 2009, compared with 15% of white households, as significant drop from trip -- from just four years earlier. plummeting home values had the greatest effect on the wealth of all groups. however, hispanics or disproportionately affected because we drive nearly -- we derived nearly two-thirds of our wealth from home-equity. about a quarter of all hispanic households, 24% to be exact, in

2009 had no access other than a vehicle, and these are just an example of some of the sobering data on the impact of the recession on our latino community. it before i take my seat on the panel, it is with great pleasure that i am going to be introducing our moderator, race juarez. he is the senior correspondent on the award winning, emmy- nominated pbs newshour, five nights a week on more than 300 pbs stations across the nation. he is also hosted the international news and analysis public radio program, america abroad, and public radio international. he may tell you that he travels at least two months out of the year internationally. and he hosted the national public radio program "talk of the nation close " from 1993 to 1999. in his more than 30-year career in the news business, he has worked as a radio reporter in

london, iran, as well as los angeles. -- london, rome, and los angeles. please welcome my good friend, and i am a big fan, race or arrests. -- ray suarez. [applause] ♪ >> congressman, good to see you, and thank you for having me with you to be a part of this important conversation. it is has been, in some ways, a perfect storm for latinos in america. the best of news and some of the worst of news. in just a short space of months. the results of the 2010 census confirming what many of us knew all along, right? strong growth, not only in the traditional long time centers of our life in this country, but double and triple digit rates of growth, far away from los angeles and new york, no where

near chicago and san antonio and miami. with the american south significantly becoming a part of immigrant america in a way that it sat out during the huge immigrant flows of the ellis island generations from 1870 to 1920. but that stunning number for the 2010 census, over 50 million to not derive in isolation. and let's remember, not all americans thought it was such great news either. in the same months, we learn that latino families lost a larger percentage of their accumulated family wealth than any other american. all that struggle, all that saving, scrounging up and down payments in squeezing into overprized housing, for hundreds of thousands of families, it is all down the drain, erased, vaporized. a big part of that loss has been in home equity with house is

dropping in value, plunging mortgages under water, leading to breathtaking for closure rates. now that home equity cannot be leveraged to help a kid pay for college, cannot be used as collateral to finance a business start up or an expansion of an existing small business. it cannot be used to create what millions of other families accept as a given intergenerational transfer of wealth. i think most of you in this room do not expect to inherit much from your parents, right? other americans go through life assuming that this is going to happen for them. but the destruction of the housing crisis for latino families did not stop there and does not stop there. our workers were heavily exposed to construction employment. when times were good, so where paychecks, as latino workers became a common feature on

residential and commercial construction sites nationwide. our unemployment shot up, higher and faster than the country as a whole, and now stands several percentage points ahead. projections for the later decades of this century show how kids pouring into public schools, our young people representing a larger and larger share of their role work force, and in their productive and high hearing middle years, paying the bills in the municipalities where they live, financing the pensions and social security checks of tens of millions of white retirees. we have come to a place economically, demographically, where our country is depending on hispanic americans for the security of their own future. you can truly say today that it will be even more true in 2030 and beyond if we're not doing

well. if we're not doing well, america is not doing well. [applause] and yet, it it is an open question whether those exciting, optimistic five year-old son entering kindergarten in washington heights in manhattan, in merced, california, one of the for closure epicenters in the country. in north carolina and miami dade, florida, whether those five-year olds will get the kind of education that will bring economic success and security, that will allow them to do better than their own hard working parents, that will allow them to break out of the cycle of low-wage employment and meager assets that has become the reality for so many today. what does america have to do? what do we have to get past the decade of loss and family setbacks? to get past the decade of skyrocketing costs in higher

education, even as family finances are stretched to the breaking point? to stop being the most under insured and uninsured of all working americans, all working americans. and what do our fellow americans know? do they even care that our economic future is their economic future? now to the rest of our distinguished panel. the 15th u.s. secretary of housing and urban development has devoted his entire career to ensuring safe, decent, and affordable housing. before coming to hud, he served as housing commissioner for the city of new york. he understood the rapid demographic changes that were occurring in different areas of the city and work toward i never said -- neighborhoods like the south bronx to ensure that policies for responsive to the changes. in the obama administration coming his work to stabilize housing market and keep response

will families in their homes as he solidified the financial position of the federal housing administration. he also launched the choice number of initiatives to help stabilize distressed communities and neighborhoods around them. the sustainable communities partnership is challenging communities and regions to develop comprehensive housing strategies and housing and transportation plans that will create jobs and helped make american business more competitive globally. please welcome hud secretary, the honorable shaun donovan. [applause] ♪ >> our next panelist was named one of the top 25 women business builders in the country by fast company magazine. in 1996, she founded an information technology services provider to the fortune 500. under her leadership, the company has become the fifth fastest-growing firms in the $20

billion industry and now has revenues of $200 million dollars with 3000 consultants across the u.s. and canada. she serves on the board of several large corporations and is chairman of the u.s. hispanic chamber of commerce. please welcome nina. [applause] >> our next panelist is dedicated his career to diversity in the workplace. use the president and owner of a diversity consulting in search firm, and use the board chairman of the society for human research management. it is the world's largest organization devoted to effective than inclusive people strategies, with nearly 260,000 members around the world. before starting his own firm, he was vice-president of leadership development and diversity and was responsible for a nationally recognized diversity strategy for more than 90 daily newspapers,

including "usa today" and 20 tv stations. he served with some of the largest corporations and federal agencies, including a time, nbc, the department of justice, and the department of transportation. he is a founding member of the national hispanic corporate counsel. please welcome jose barrios. [applause] ♪ a two-time finalist for the pulitzer prize for his coverage of presidential campaigns, he currently serves as the national journal group's editorial director. he also writes a weekly column and contributes pieces for but the national journal and atlantic magazine. his book, "the second civil war" was published in 2007. he has also served as a national affairs columnist for the "los

angeles *" and as a political analyst for the 2012 election for abc and cnn. that is how much in demand he is, competitors both hire him. please welcome ron brownstein. [applause] before we began the conversation, let me mention one member of the caucus, one longtime member of the caucus. and from the bronx, representative jose serrano. [applause] >> i think we could have one of the more distressing and depressing panels of the entire annual meeting. if we dwell at length on the statistics coming out of hispanic households across the country.

but i cannot sugarcoat the situation. it is frightening. it is distressing. and those losses mean real hardship and setbacks for millions of people. ron, you and i were talking about this before we came up. help me set the table. what are we looking at, both in terms of growth in numbers, were that growth is, and the state of play for latino families in the country? >> thank you. i think the reason for optimism and did a very challenging environment is that, simply as a society, we have no choice but to do better than we have been doing admitting minorities into the middle class. you know, we have thought about access and economic opportunity as being primarily an issue of fairness over the last, you know, certainly since the civil rights era. we face serious challenges.

we're living through what my friend at the brookings institution called the cultural generation gap. 47% of americans under 18 are now non-white. and yet, 80% of our seniors are still white. there is a big political gap between what i have called the brown and the gray, this growing minority population, moving its kids into the middle class, education, and health care, and an aging baby boomer predominantly white population that has grown more resistant to government action in their voting and political behavior. but ultimately, as is often the case in american life, i think we are more independent than we realize. because this minority generation is the work force that is going to have to pay the payroll taxes to fund social security and medicare for this aging white generation. all the projections i have seen

is that the number of whites in the work force are not, as a share, but as an absolute number will decline over the next couple of decades. unless we're counting on getting the best educated from every country are around the world, we have no choice but to educate this growing minority population. i have one final statistic to kind of underscore this. the best projections are that given the dominance of this minority population, particularly hispanics, in this new generation -- 2011 will be the tipping point where a majority of newborns for the first time will be non-wide in the u.s. unless we do a better job of educating this emerging generation, the absolute level of policies and change will begin to go down. it is a frightening prospect in the global economy that is increasingly based on information. i think an american life, we're more interdependent that we acknowledge and maybe even more

interdependent than we realize. because unless we get move more of these kids into the middle class, we're going to face enormous physical challenges, enormous challenges funding social cicada, medicare, and most of all, enormous challenges competing. jose, you are in that business of getting people into the work force and sort of maximizing their potential once there. given this distressing statistics about education, is this population giving human resource professionals enough to work with? is this the case of wanting to promote them but not having the stock they're in high school and college graduates? >> i think ron is absolutely right. we have to keep in mind that the latest data shows there are parks mill about 3 million jobs available in the workplace. our h professionalr are the front-line hiring people, and they said the problem with trying to fill those 3 million jobs as we do not have the

people with special skills and education levels required to hire them. the data shows that if we were to fill those 3 million jobs, the unemployment rate would go from 9.1% to about 8%. 3 million jobs that are out there, and we cannot find the skilled and educated in vigils to fill those jobs. that is a big problem. as night, charlie gonzalez was telling us, and how the air has said that the focus now needs to be on grade school kids. latinos in grade school. i think that is absolutely critical, because we have to focus on two things. one, trying to reduce the dropout rate of our kids in schools. two, provide more educational opportunities for kids to go to college. because if we do not do that, we will continue to have our kids coming out of school, dropping out, and staying in low-wage paying jobs. the labor jobs, the ones affected by the economic downturn.

we need to really focus on elevating and keeping our kids in school, elevating the educational attainment of hispanic kids around the country, so that they can compete for those jobs. right now, today, we can turn that around if we had that kind of skilled work force, individuals coming into the work force, which in those around. the unemployment rate would change. what we're being told by our hr professionals in the field, they're not really ready for those jobs. that is why we have such a large unemployment rate. >> well, i was in high school a really, really, really long time ago. so when i was in high school and a member of the chapter of my new york city public high school, there was not one of us in the room who did not know that we had to go to high school, finish, and then go to college to do better than our parents did. and not one of our parents and

did not know that. it is not a lack of knowing. at this point, it is a lack of doing. what is standing between those kids i talked about entering kindergarten all around the country and 16 years later, walking across the stage while their name is being said out loud and someone handing them a diploma, a four-year diploma? why is it not happening? >> that is the critical issue. we have to look at the entire communities around the country and figure out a way to get kids in schools, focus on and staying in school, looking for opportunities, whether they can get the scholarships and be able to get into school, giving them the opportunity to work in go to college in finish college. that, to me, is the critical issue we face in the hispanic community that we have to have more focus on. it is very difficult, because our kids are struggling just to help the household. working a couple of jobs just to

maintain a household. it is a vicious cycle that we need to constantly focus on, to break that cycle that we have within our communities around the country. >> when demographers in the u.s. census bureau california levels of education, they use the term some college. they do not mean it like an exclamation, some college! they mean you have only got some and not enough, and tragically, there are millions of our kids to have some college and no degree. and even worse, they borrowed money to get those credits and not finish a credential, so they are paying debt and getting none of the acceleration that the decree would provide. it is a disaster, a disaster. how do we get out of that? >> i do not know that i have all the answers, but i was one of those students not long ago when

i was in college who had to make the decision, do i draw out and join my work force? there were five kids and my family, one parent -- or do i stay in school? i have firsthand information on the overwhelming responsibility that one feels to their family. but i think that what we can do to help these kids is two-fold. information and inspiration. you have to give them the information. they have to understand the importance of education in our country. you have to continue to create that information over and over again. in grade school and at every level. and the other one, quite frankly, is inspiration. one of the things we strive to do is take entrepreneurship and have those entrepreneurs service role models, talk to kids run the country, create programs and services. when you see someone that looks like you, sounds like you, you tend to say to yourself, i can

do that. when you have inspiration and you have hope, there's nothing you cannot do. >> congressman, i am sorry, i cut you off. oh, secretary -- i am going to get to you, secretary. >> look, education is a piece of the puzzle, and i want to come come back and talk about housing. the congressman talked about that you study, the devastating numbers the air, in terms of household wealth. first, organizations have to lead. i think we have to talk about the incredible role that chci has played. we have to great role models. this week, you are honoring hilda solis and ken salazar with this conference. two phenomenal role models. you also have a fellows program. we have three fellows at hud

right now that are building skills and public service because of the work that chci is doing. we have to recognize that they have been a leader in this area. to go beyond that, the president's speech last week. he recognizes first and foremost, we have to stop the bleeding in so many of our schools. the american jobs act would fund 2800 teachers. we have to fund a bad investment. -- that investment. he has fought to expand health grants. make sure that you can have those debts forgiven, if you serve as a teacher, for example, if you teach in schools. but we also have to do more -- i agree that the early years are critical.

but which also have to connect young people to jobs. right now, in the hispanic community, we have an almost 20% youth unemployment rate. completely unacceptable. what we have to do is build community colleges. last week, as part of the american jobs act, community college benefits which will be critical. we also have to do a better job of job training, connecting those community colleges, other training opportunities, directly to jobs. even with the long-term unemployed. we have got to extend unemployment insurance. absolutely. it is a critical part of the american jobs act. but we also have to turn that program into a training program, and a $4,000 tax credit that the

president proposed, which would go to businesses that hire the long-term unemployed. there are a whole set of things and we have to do. first and foremost -- and i know that we have the support of the congressmen here. we have to pass the american job act. [applause] >> how about housing? your four predecessors -- probably going back much further -- set minority homeownership as a central goal of their agency, going around the country encouraging black and brown buyers. in some cases, in a mature, oversold market. as a country, we were encouraging to do whatever it took. at a time of cheap money,

squeeze through the front doors of that house. now that home has become a millstone around that families neck, if they have been able to hold on to win at all. can we dig out of this, in a time frame that is meaningful to families? >> it is an absolutely critical question. latinos had the largest drop of any country, two-thirds, the day that the president walked into office from the prior four years. this is absolutely essential. i do not think the lesson we should learn from what we have seen is that latinos should not aspire to homeownership, and at the federal level, we should not be working to provide them access to home ownership. what we need to make sure is we have sustainable home ownership. we were way too focused on getting folks into home

ownership, but not looking at whether it would last. i am proud that fha, which is part of hud, two-thirds of latinos that bought homes last year used an fha loan. it says something about the lack of assets in the broader mortgage market, and the importance of the right federal role to assistance. two-thirds of our growth in this country will come from latinos, going forward. if they cannot access home ownership, they will not be able to build well in the way that we traditionally have in the country. but we also have to help communities, families that have been hurt. we have made progress there, but not enough progress. there are about 5 million families that have had their mortgages modified. a large share of them latino because the crisis was concentrated in the latino

community. but we have to do more. that is why the american jobs act would invest $15 billion for neighborhood stabilization. we put $7 billion into neighbor of them were particularly hard hit by foreclosures. it creates about 100,000 jobs putting construction workers back to work rebuilding these homes. the critical part of that is it helps to stabilize home of values in those communities, reduce some vacancies. and it has been highly targeted to hispanic neighborhoods. if you look at the congressional spending caucus neighborhoods, about 12% of the investment, when those districts represent only 4% of the overall population. so another $15 billion over is on neighborhood revitalization activity would be enormously important in continuing to stabilize an increasing values in those neighborhoods, for

those home owners who have been hurt. second of all, it would create local jobs in the community. those renovating homes are not international companies coming from overseas. they are local businesses, many of them owned by hispanic leaders in their community. we need to make sure that those jobs are available. almost 3 million hispanic working in construction around this country. they have been hit harder than anyone else, and we have to put them back to work. >> bankers have been reluctant to admit that some of the $240,000 houses they sold are actually worth $140,000. there is a disconnect, a gulf in that evaluation, not all the programs in the world have not been able to massage. because they carry those houses on their books, they are not willing to say, yak, it is a

$140,000 house. but because they will not, the family cannot change how they pay for the house. either they lose it or somebody admits it is not worth $240,000. but so far, that lack of give, that frigidity, has been hard on families. how do you work around that? >> which you pointed out is the essence of the problem. until you reduce the principal amount that is due, you are not going to have that kind of relief. i am sure there has been a discussion about it, that it was never going to get done. maybe it was too ambitious. basically, create a corporation that bought up the paper, reduced the printable. that corporation lasted until 1959. u.s. shoe had 85% of all mortgages that were paid out.

that is the kind of ambition it will take. the secretary says that it is an impossibility, given the political climate, and he is probably right. but i do not see the holder of the paper willing to do something like that. my own opinion is, that would be a prudent thing to do, renegotiate on that. does foreclosure serve anyone's interests? if i am your next-door neighbor, the last thing i want to say is your home for close because it reduces the value of my home. i think it is going to have to be something where you look at the principal. until we figure that out, i do not know where it is going to go. i do not mean to sound hopeless, but that is the reality of a transaction. you have something that is way overvalued and you cannot afford

the payments on -- based on that over belly ration. >> the congressman is right. we have made progress on making loans affordable for families. foreclosures are down 35% from where they were a year ago. with all the programs, we have reached 5 million families. but what remains, the single largest problem is this overhang of debt. those who are under water, particularly concentrated in california, arizona, nevada, the states that have been home to latino families traditionally. we had been close to getting a bankruptcy reform bill that to balanceorce lenders those. the biggest challenge the have now is, all of the lawsuits and efforts brought up against banks are our biggest tool to force

them to start to reduce these balances. that is why we are less closely working with all 50 attorney generals, and we will get significant principal reduction out of that. unfortunately, given the divine we have in congress, it is going to be difficult to get moving in congress. we have to find other ways to do this. >> home ownership. hispanic home ownership is at 49.1%, versus the national average of almost 70%. that is what we have to look at. out of 13.4 million hispanic households, this is the chicken and egg problem. only 13% make over $100,000 a year. households, think about that. 57% misled -- make less than 57 belsen dollars a year.

-- 57 down and dollars by year. the statistics are daunting. -- $50,000 a year. it is a done with spiral. home ownership in the honor community is important because oftentimes they leverage its equity on their home to start their business. this is why creating wealth in the community is important, particularly in home ownership. this is when the entrepreneur ship becomes a viable option. in the past five years, hispanic home business has grown over 114%. a 2007 study shows 3.1 million hispanic businesses. according to a 2012, that number should date 4.1 million businesses. so hispanic businesses are

showing up at an incredible rate. on the printer or a ship is a viable option for feeding their family and creating wealth in the family. we need to educate on spinners, particularly at a young age, that they can. out of 10 hispanic-owned businesses, 7 happen today latina. -- to be latina. >> the tea party, which is a ponderously older, white room, representing a certain force of the country, grew immediately out the reaction. in the immediate spark was the efforts on relieving people who were over their head on home debt. there is that. but actually, home ownership is another example -- along with

medicare and social security -- that we are more interdependent than we realize. you have these white, aging baby boomers. you look at states like california. people will be looking to get out of their homes in the coming years. the households that are emerging will be increasingly minority. in number of whites in their childbearing years declined in the last decade by 10% while increasing 20% for minorities. demographic changes. it is the same kind of thing. if you do not bring more kids into the middle class, help them finish high school and college. and i think we should mention the responsibility of colleges and community colleges to improve their completion rates. and do not have any of the pressure that k-12 organizations to have. unless we move more of those kids into the middle class, you

will not only have problems funding social security, medicare, but who is going to buy these houses? when you look at this from every angle, as is often the case, we are more interdependent than we often technology. there is a need for the investment that will help those kids move into the middle class. that is not where the politics is now, but ultimately, becomes more and more inescapable. >> so how do create policy that is not based at its core that i am not asking for a gift, that i need a favor, that you're giving me something? but instead, create policy that makes -- that takes that formation, but has at its core mutual self-interest? it is not because you are doing something nice for me and i have my hand out, it is because we need each other. we need each other for this

economy to work. a basic lot of housing physics. every seller needs a buyer. >> if you live next door to somebody's house who is foreclosed on, you have made every single mortgage payment, your house goes down in value about $10,000 on average that day. you talk about interrelated. everybody's home about us, everybody's wealth, latinos in the country, and those who have been able to work and keep their jobs, are all independently connected. this is why the president mentioned this, and this is why it is so important. this investment in those communities is critical. you talk about education. one of the midst that have come -- myths to come out of this

issue is low and middle income families cannot do home ownership. you can educate family to be prepared for home ownership. and here we have the tea party. in the house budget introduced last week, they cut 100% of funding for housing counseling. that is counseling we do with latino organization that helped to create the right platform to build wealth in the future by creating home ownership that is sustainable. it is so short-sided. we have to wake up and see that we are interdependent. >> and you say, how do we do that without appearing that it is a handout? since when is public education a handout? it is part of the government's

whole purpose and goals, to educate a skilled work force. since when is making access to capital to purchase a home or start a business a handout? that is the way that it needs to be presented. it is a government and private sector partnership. the private-sector assists -- the government assists the private sector with a consumer base. when you have that going with the private sector, i assure you we will have a meeting of the minds and the legislation that accommodates the goals. they are the same >> let us take some questions from the floor. i know that you are very excited because of this upbeat and optimistic stuff that we are talking about. [laughter] anybody have a question?

>> hopefully, a little more upbeat. the world that hispanics can play it in the global economy. particularly, language is so necessary -- multiple languages that need to be spoken. what is being done, to your knowledge, to take advantage of the bilingual child who is hispanic in the public education system? >> for those of you who do not know charlie, he is a great gift to our community. why don't you take that one, josé. good to see you, by the way. it is a great question. the unfortunate thing, i think,

is that is not a valued skill in this country yet. everywhere else except the united states, the skill of bilingual education is very valuable. there are fears, as in some countries, associated with creating a bilingual society. it is an unfortunate thing but it is a reality. everywhere else around the world, it is valued. again, without being pessimistic, i see it as a challenge within the united states public education system. it is getting a little better in some regions around the country, and even some colleges promote it, but it is still a big problem. i think you're absolutely right that could be a competitive edge

for us in the global economy, understanding the value of an individual who is bilingual and can be more effective representing our position worldwide. i do not see that happening yet. but we're getting there slowly. >> one of the things that i think is an enormous opportunity is around trade. the president said able to double exports. we are ahead of our goal on that. last month was the largest export month in the history of the united states and we are actually growing exports in a number of areas that are surprising. agricultural exports are now at the highest level that they have ever been. to me, this is one area where we could take advantage of bilingual education, the actual event -- the language advantage hispanics have in this country. there are lots of opportunities in central and south america,

european countries. that opportunity is one that we ought to focus on and take advantage of, going forward. >> secretary, you have been kind which your time. i know that you are on a tight schedule. i have been instructed that i may dismiss you. thank you appeared . >> thank you for having me. [applause] >> good morning. ceo for the society of hispanic engineers. for us, education is the key. we graduate 70,000 engineers, china, india have much more. i think we need to do something to encourage corporations to

fund organizations, like the one i represent, and many in this room, because education is key. the other part of it, a lot of our community was devastated by the housing crisis. one of the big issues that i also see -- and we have 318 chapters throughout the country -- i asked how many of them actually have financial literacy as part of their ability? it is about getting the corporation to see that they need to invest in this country, but it is also about educating the community about financial literacy, investing in education. i would like to see what all of you have to say with regards to the policy that we can begin to create two relief in court corporations to see that those two areas are critical for the success of our community. you look at the demographics, we

are losing success to other countries. >> i really wonder -- i think one of farmers central questions -- and it will never be framed in this way politically. whether or not we will conclude over the next 20 years that it is simply too difficult for us to raise the kids that we have into a position where they can finish high school, college, obtain advanced degrees, and become that skilled work force that we need, or we're just court to try to cull the top few percent from are around the world. it is a daunting statistics. the demographics and educational trends are such that the overall level of college attainment for america, society-wide, will

begin declining by the end of the decade. that is an incredible prospect when so much economic growth is based on an information economy. i bet that has not been true since we had the massive influx in the melting pot era. so are we going to try to uplift the work force that we have, or are we going to find it easier to bring in the skills that many from around the world, or go to those skills? that is a basic question. right now, if i had to bet, i might lean towards not making the effort. this kind of political polarization that we are in. look at the state of texas. the majority of the k-12 systems became hispanic for the first time ever. and yet, the state legislature and governor chose to cut education by an unprecedented amount, rather than raising

taxes a nickel. you look at that kind of polarization -- 90% of their votes are from whites in texas. you look at those trends and maybe they would choose to go the other way. >> you mentioned the texas experience, which i do not wish on anyone. it is interesting. during that debate, and the business community was silent. the chambers of congress were silent. they did not come on board until it was way too late. we have more kids in public schools and we have ever had. we are not financing the increasing numbers over the next two years. spending almost 6 $1 less per student than ever before -- $600 less per student than ever before. and i agree, the answer needs to come from the private sector. where are we going to invest for the skills that are required for

the employees that they are going to have to hire? corporate america, does the private sector have a direction on where the future lies for america? that is a serious question. have you heard anyone tell us, this is the road map, and these are the relevant jobs in the global economy? and when we start in the schools, the private sector has to be engaged with the school board. they need to be given direction. we are going to open a factory, this is our product, this is our service, this is what we need in the way of job description. that is not going on. even with education, my frustration is that we do not even take into account the diversity of the student population that the public schools have today. when i went to high school, we did not even have a ramp for any

child that was in a wheelchair. it rehab kids with dyslexia, autistic? sure, but they just dropped out. it was not that nobody cared, it was almost like natural selection. but there were jobs for them. that is the difference. we have to give direction to the government, educators, what you need, and how we put that into motion, given the challenges of a modern classroom. but for all of this bad news, there are still countervailing bits of data and then give you hope. >> just a couple weeks ago, the pew center said there was a surge of college enrollment. the number of those attending college and an all-time high of

12.2 million in october 2010. hispanic young adults enrolled in higher education grew by 349,000 in one year. it is emblematic of the fact that our kids know they need the education, but also emblematic of the sheer size of the population is going to drive the country's performance, when it comes to these numbers being done there are so many statistics to keep track of .. -- these numbers. >> there are so many statistics to keep track of. we could rattle statistics of all day. the statistic that i find gets everyone's attention, hispanics and non-hispanics, is very simplistic. if you are not related to a panic today, you soon will be. [laughter] and if you do not believe me, you can ask my german husband.

[laughter] >> i appreciate the discussion on education but i believe there is a disenfranchisement of public education. i believe it is a tactic that our kids will be the victim of. one of these tactics includes race to the top. whenever you have a race, there are kids that lose. what are the feelings of the panel to fully funding all mandates? >> i do not think anybody can look at 3 trajectory on public spending in education in the last 40 years and say that this system does not demand significant reform. whether you believe the investment is a fictitious or not.

in many ways, you can argue that it is not. there is no question, the k-12 system can do a much better job. and to many places, it is seen as a jobs program for adults, rather than an indication for rent for kids. also, and the post-secondary education system needs to face more pressure to improve the outcomes. particularly for first-time students. that nightmare scenario that you talked about. people that say their whole life to go to college and they end up being unable to complete for whatever reason and they end up with more debt and no degree. you can argue that we under invest in education, but even with that perspective, then everybody needs to be militant in demanding that the entire system produce better results for the dollars that we are spending. >> hi think your question was how to get the corporate

community involved. one of my favorite words is the word "accountability." i would like to leave you with that thought. one of the best measures of accountability that i have seen surveytor bob mendez's asking corporate companies for transparency on hispanics, not only hired in their ranks, but who they are doing business with. use its on their board. i think you will see the corporate community respond when you hold them accountable. i think we can do -- continue to do a good job, like what senator mendez had done. as i close, the word accountability is two fold.

it goes both ways. as hispanics, we cannot be a self-fulfilling prophecy. you cannot be hispanic for a living. we have to hold ourselves accountable to be the best that we can be and not be measured by the color of our skin, but by our human potential. that is all i have ever done. i ask that we also hold ourselves accountable to be part of the solution. 50% of leadership is just showing up. easy to get here, i flew in from dallas. but i want to thank you all for being here. it speaks to your passion and the growth of our community. >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you. i want to compliment the people that asked the questions because

i thought they were very timely and important. i serve on the education committee. i think race to the top and all of the new program that have been introduced by secretary of education arne duncan, at the request of president obama, is thinking out of the box. i have served in education nearly 40 years. i serve on the education committee now 50 years on the committee for higher ed. i have been to china three times. each of the five years, every time i have gone, i have ask questions of the ministers of education, professors, students, what is the secret to your success of 97% of kindergartners graduating from high school? in india, china, finland, all those other countries, 97% graduate compared to our miserable graduation rate. the answer is simple, they say.

this is the formula. early reading plus writing equal success in school. by the time those children are 3 years old, they can read. if you say they cannot, you are wrong. by the time they are four years old, they are on a computer, writing what they read. that is why they can proceed and graduate from high school, and go on to college. in china, 80% of their high school graduates go to college. in south korea, 90% go to college. why? because they can read and write. so the question about literacy, education, is part of that. they save 20% of their disposable income. five years ago, in 2007, just

before the recession, our average american had a negative 2% savings compared to their 20%. financial literacy education is part of the banking reform bill of christopher dodd and barney frank. it has consumer financial protection, and it says, there shall be an office for financial literacy education, but the people in the majority right now are blocking it. folks, there are solutions by this new administration thinking out of the box. whenever we had for the last 30 years was not worth a darn thing because we have gone down and down in graduating minorities. lastly, i want to say this. the reason you gave the statistics in pew, that we have

this great increase in students going to community colleges and universities, is because president obama of us, on the committee which i was a chairman of, to make the biggest investments ever in the history of the united states, bigger than the gi bill. it has $2.55 billion for minority serving institutions, including the three big ones, hsi, hpcu, and asian american colleges. that means they can get an extra $100 million a year on top of what we now have, which is $117 million to recruit latinos and latinas to go to colleges. we added on that the telegram. under my leadership, we got it from $3,400 to $5,000.

my last point, you can make a direct federal government loan at 5%. if you ran into bad times because of yourself, your family's health, or you lost your home, you can borrow that money at 3.4% for a student college loan. so you have the telegram, student college loan. that is what is happening. you can go to college. they are going to college because it is more affordable than it has ever been, thanks to the congressional hispanic caucus. we put together a coalition and we got 77 votes together to make sure that this happened. the bill was signed into law a year ago. that is making a big difference. thank you.

[applause] >> thank you, congressman. for all of you who want to ask a question and am wondering, if i want to ask a question, why is he wrapping up now? can you put that on the screen? i have two big screens that say "please wrap up." i wish i could show you. thank you all for having me. good to see you all. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> the u.s. house is in recess at the moment. mewill be ba briefly at around 4:00 eastern. three bills on the calendar. 3 dealing with financial and judges and financial reporting. we also want to tell you about a congressional 9/11 remembrance ceremony expected to begin at 6:00 eastern. we are planning to bring that to you live on c-span. the joint deficit reduction committee will hold their second meeting tomorrow. their focus will be on accepting the nation we will have that live on our companion network c-span 3. in an election marred by a moral scandal and political corruption, and james blaine lost in 1884, but changed political history. he is one of the 14 men featured

in the new weekly series "the contenders." friday at 8:00 eastern. learn more about the series and upcoming programs at c-span.org /contenders. >> the white house budget director spoke today at a briefing about how the administration could pay for the president's job plan and still achieve deficit-reduction. white house press secretary jay carney later takes questions on the plan as well as opposition to u.s. palestinian statehood opposition. >> it is your lucky day.

before i get started and tell you why i have jack here, i want to give you a sense of where this week is headed for the president. the president planned by the kinds of workers that would benefit from the americans jobs act, announced it would be announcing specific language on the bill today. he is still asking congress to pass the bill properly. tomorrow, the president travels to columbus, ohio, where he visits a school that was recently modernized. he will get a sense of intangible benefits that students, teachers, and the community will provide. on wednesday, the president will visit a small business in the durham area with businesses that would benefit from the americans job act.

i have with me the office of -- the director of the office of management budish. he will be submitting the americans job act to congress later today. you have been briefed extensively on the provision that create jobs and growth the economy in that act. part of that act, the president presents to congress today, it has what we call pay-force. mechanism by which those things would be paid for. jack is here to explain those. if you want to ask a question that he can handle, of course, i will remain to take your questions on other subjects. >> thank you. let me start by putting pay for package into perspective. the president said that he would introduce the package, $450 billion, and that it be paid for. he is sending legislation to

congress that had the growth package agenda and the pay fors in it. he has a series of specifics but also said that the target for the joint committee should be raised. i know that has caused some confusion, so i thought i would start by putting the relationship between the two in perspective. this is a stand-alone bill. and have the investment in jobs and has provisions to pay for it. by raising the target of the joint committee, we are saying congress should pass the jobs bill now with the pay-fors, and when the joint committee reaches its decision later in the fall, it can then put in new offsets to pay for it, and that would trigger the pay-fors, or it can do the original target of 1.5 and then the pay-fors in the original jobs bill will stand. that is the relationship between

the johns committee and the bill. the bill is paid for. whatever one will pass, the jobs part is paid for. it is a question of whether the committee comes back and essentially replaces these offsets with others. the specific offsets in the package are a series of tax provisions. i think they will be familiar to most of you because they are ideas that we have been talking about for some time. first, a limit on itemized deductions, exemptions for individuals who earn over $200,000, families earning over $250,000. that limitation raises roughly $400 billion over 10 years. there is a provision that would treat carried interest, and the interest earned by investment fund managers as ordinary income, rather than taxing it at the capital gains tax rate. that would raise $18 billion.

there are a number of oil and gas provisions which, collectively, raise $40 billion, that would, with the indictment of these provisions, tree the oil and gas industry like other industries, taking away special preference. finally, the corporate jet depreciation rule has changed. right now, corporate jets are depreciated over five years, commercial over seven. it would treat commercial and and and private the same. it intentionally overachieves because these are based on our estimates internally. and we estimate tax provisions, and they really are pinpoint accurate to the same number.

sometimes they are higher, sometimes lower. it just built in a cushion so that when we go through the process of scoring on the hill, we have built in a cushion for the differences that happen. we do believe we have overachieved, which would leave a bit of excess. that is the package of offsets. >> you said overachieve. the first when you listed, and eliminating itemize deductions. i remember seeing in the first version, the provision was in there. you had a democratic house and senate then. it went nowhere. >> the merits of the proposal stand on its own. as the president made clear in his speech thursday, we have

tauruses to make. in order to invest in jobs and growth, we have to pay for it. we are going to have to look at quite a few things that we have looked at before and ask the question, should we do this in order to add to growth and create jobs? we think the american people will pick this is the right package. it is our offer as to the right way to pay for it. we think congress should pass it. >> [inaudible] >> we believe congress should agree. >> if they do not, you have the money. >> we have policies here that are real. again, it is a choice. the way this limitation on itemized the option works, if you earn $200,000 as an individual, 250 as a family, your itemized deductions and exemptions are worth about 20%. in a higher tax bracket, 33,

36%. all this says is the value of tax deductions above that threshold should be the same as at pat threshold. -- that threshold. we think it is a balanced trade off. let me also add, we are pulling out of the package that would present next week, the pieces that are self-contained and the jobs and growth package which are paid for. we will have more detail and will make about the overall deficit reduction package. we are going to overachieve on the joint committee target. what the president has said is we continue to need the jobs bill now, and we have to do with fiscal challenges. frankly, we should do more than the target the joint committee has. this is the piece, taken alone, i would pay for the jobs

package. >> what is the rationale for having congress vote for the pay-fors, giving the super committed the option to redo the package? >> never did to to act as soon as possible on the jobs and growth package. we do not think it would be the best course of action, the right course of action to defer everything to the end of the year. we wanted to pull out the provision that we thought could move was quickly to get action. as far as how we reach the visit reduction goals, which is the mandate of the joint committee, there is a little bit more time. if you think of it as a trigger mechanism, these are in place unless the joint committee acts to tear them off. -- trigger them off. it is really a way to get action started sooner.

>> is there any way where congress could decide on these pay-fors [inaudible] if the super committee had to redo that package, that it was at least an equal amount? >> then we would have to hit the target of 1.5, plus the cost of the jobs bill. if they want to take these provisions and place them under those rules, they would have to equal it. obviously, congress can pass a subsequent lot. >> is it fair to say, given the pay-fors, the president believes the wealthiest americans should pay more in order to pay for his jobs bill? >> what this package means is we want action taken now on the jobs and growth package. it is a challenge to break apart a multi trillion debt is a reduction package so you can have a piece that stand on its own and move quickly.

this was an attempt to put together a package that can be self-contained and moved quickly. in terms of looking at the overall balance of shared sacrifice, when you see the package next monday, you will see there are shared sacrifices much broader than just the wealthiest americans. as we are going through the process of paying for jobs, growth, they will have to be the most significant part of that. >> the president will blame republicans in congress if they do not pass the bill. you are setting it up as a choice between jobs for americans or tax cut for corporate jet owners, for oil and gas companies, and for deduction for the wealthiest americans. >> what the president said on thursday night is true. we cannot afford everything. we have to make choices.

if the american people were asked to make a choice between tax breaks for investment fund managers who get preferential treatment for carried interest, and oil and gas industry tax breaks that treat them more favorably than other investments, and corporate jets that are treated more favorably than commercial, that is not a heart was for most americans. -- a hard choice for most americans. >> how many jobs will be created with this? >> we have not put out an official the administration estimates. >> why not? >> we do not do official job estimates. >> any working numbers? >> we have seen the same numbers that you have seen that private market forecasters are putting out. mark zandi put out some numbers

on friday. there is a range. millions of jobs. a very substantial amount of job growth, which ever the number of you look at. mark zandi's numbers are on target? >> i just referred to two numbers that came out in different places. there was a range. i think he said 1.9? macroeconomic advisers was a bit lower. in each case, they demonstrate there are significant impacts on gdp growth, significant impact on job growth, and to begin reduction in unemployment, which is why the president's message to congress is to pass this bill now. >> [inaudible] this job will still create 2 million jobs, 1.5 million. does that not make it an easier sell? >> it is always a challenge with these projections. they are subject to a lot of

things other than just what you are proposing in the package. we are very comfortable looking at the estimates that outside experts have done, which have very much supports the importance of this package as an engine of economic growth, in terms of faster gdp growth, job growth, bringing down unemployment. the american people do not want us to be standing here arguing over estimates but getting the job done to create jobs bit of a question about what you will be proposing next week. you say that you will overachieve the target. there have been a lot of calls for the grand bargain again to go big, do the $4 trillion package. he is not going to do that next week? >> i will not get ahead of what the president will announce. i can safely say it will achieve far beyond what the committee has come up with,

stabilize the deficit and debt in this 10-year window. >> when you say go beyond, overachieve, you are talking about the commission for your jobs act. you're not talking about going all the way to 4? >> if you want quick passage for the bill and a congress that is half republican, y no spending cuts in this pay-for package? >> i want to remind everyone that in august we had an agreement not locked in very substantial spending cuts in discretionary spending. we had a joint committee that will be working on deficit reduction. as i indicated, on monday, we will be coming in with a proposal that shows a balanced approach that shows shared sacrifice. the challenge in this in jobs package is putting something together that is self-contained

and can move. that is what we have done. >> republicans will say that the sacrifice is not shared. >> if you look at the overall impact -- i think one can look at the budget control act and c $1 trillion in savings. one can look ahead at the joint committee with the full knowledge that there will be calls for additional spending cuts there. the president has always said a balanced approach involves all of them, not just some areas of the budget. this is one piece of the overall efforts. >> maybe i am not getting it. all of these things that are proposed now were proposed before when it was a smaller amount -- before the scott added to this stuff at the super committee will have to do. does this mean that itemize deductions, a carried interest,

oil and gas, that that is off the table for the additional cuts that they will have to come up with? will there be more of these? i do not know if i were and that in a way that makes sense. >> obviously, each thing that raises money can only be used once. i do understand that there is the risks that if you use things in two places, you do not get the results you want. next week, we will be putting out a plan which includes these provisions and others that will overachieve compared to the joint committee plan. the joint committee would then look and we have submitted to it, and other things. they will make choices as to how they want to approach deficit reduction. hopefully, this will have passed the congress, will be in place as something that takes effect, unless they take some other action. in that case, they could not use

it to meet their 1.5. >> whether congress accepts the president's proposal or whether the joint committee decides to move on days, even if they pay for 467, that has to offset 447. [inaudible] >> that is correct. >> [inaudible] i understand you want to put the pay-fors together with part of the package. why not put it together with a larger one a week from now? the committee is meeting a couple of time before they see what the president is coming forward with. >> we are working hard on putting the final plan together. we will put it out a week from today, which is very much in time to be part of the committee deliberations.

it is very much our purpose to have the president's specific details out there early in the process -- >> it is not complete yet? >> the urgency of the jobs and growth package -- we have an immediate, urgent need for congress to act on jobs and growth. it cannot wait we cannot tie it to the schedule of the joint committee. we moved as quickly as possible to get the package out. as soon as congress returned from the august break, this package is out there. there was the presentation of the policy, and today, we are sending legislative language. we are moving very quickly to get this package up there. congress is in the afternoon, i

believe. >> this has president has talked about making sure that wealthy corporations pay their fair share. i am just wondering if the deficit reduction plan might include limiting international tax laws. >> i do not want to get ahead of what the president said last thursday and what he is going to say a week from today. there will be additional discussion of our corporate tax plan in the package next week. >> a couple more for jack, and then we will move on. >> the u.s. to make any job losses -- do you estimate any job losses? >> we do not think it will cause

a reduction in economic activity or job loss. we're very comfortable they are consistent with economic growth. in terms of timing, this provisions do not take effect until january of 2013. between the fact that they are not provisions that should have that impact, they will not even be on the books until january 2013, it is very consistent in terms of paying for an immediate jobs package. >> [inaudible] >> when you talk about the figures and holidays jobs, one has to go back to january of 2009 when the stimulus package was unveiled when they said it would bring unemployment levels down to 6.8%. they have not gone down to that

level. how can there be confidence in any figures that you off from jobs created or what the unemployment will be based on that record? >> as you know, i was not a member of the economic team then. i have an outsider's knowledge of the deliberations that are going on at the time. i will say that the recovery act produced the level of new jobs that was expected. what changed was that the economy was in a much deeper recession than anyone knew at the time, the whole was deeper and that what harder -- and that much harder to get out. there is a danger in predicting unemployment rates. there are a lot of things that determine what the unemployment rate is and what it will be. even if you create x million new jobs, if you started out carter

-- farther behind economic growth, and will take longer to hit levels of unemployment. it is a dangerous thing to try to penpoint predicting unemployment rates. i do think that when you look at a package like this, you know we'd is going to have a positive impact in terms of gdp growth and you know it is going to have a positive effect on jobs with a multiplier, at and there is very much a demonstrable impact on job growth. the position we are in is to rely on the outside experts who take a range of views and an objective measure that policymakers can look to to see the band went -- bandwidth of what the impact is likely to be. all the numbers i have seen range in a pretty tight space. substantial impact on gdp growth, jobs growth, a reduction

in unemployment. >> there will be no more predictions. >> i will not be making any more predictions. >> given that the republicans are already quibbling over what is in the package, what will you do to get it passed? what elements are you willing to let go? >> we will be sending congress later today the president's proposal. we think congress should take that proposal and pass it. i will not stand here before we have even transmitted it to congress that the late on a hypothetical. it is clear that what we are doing will help the economy enormously. it will create jobs. everything in it is the kind of initiative that either now or in the past has had partisan support. we think it is the basis for working together. >> your position now is he will push for everything that is any? >> we very much urge them to

take it up and pass it. >> thank you, jack. >> how many pages? >> i will have to get that for you. i am going to respond to a couple of things. the president believes the united states congress should, upon receiving the american jobs act, passed it. he is submitting a bill that by the estimates of any economist on the outside, would say it creates jobs and promotes the economy. by incentivizing the private sector, by putting more money into americans' pockets, by putting teachers back to work, putting construction workers back to work, police and firefighters, and he believes

the american jobs at should be passed by congress. -- american jobs act should be passed by congress. i think we will see the reference to their estimates coming forward, i think it ought to be a cut -- incumbent upon people who are journalists to at least did knowledge in their riding -- writing what jack is talking about. the forecast made for an early 2009 were based on the economic data available to any economist insider outside the illustration. what we did not know, in fact, what we only learned this summer is that in the fourth quarter of 2008, the american economy contracted at 9%. before this present took office.

the next month, when he took office, at the end of the month, by the end of that month, the american economy had shed 770,000 jobs. again, i certainly do not think that you are suggesting that president obama feels that the economic team is responsible for that. those 770,000 jobs were part of the total that reached 8 million as a result of the recession that was in full bloom as we know now when he took office. at least as a reporter, acknowledge there is a separation between a talking point and a facts on the ground at the time. >> raising taxes on people, won't that did the opposite -- walt that do the opposite? >> we do not believe that anything in the provision would do anything but grow the

economy and create jobs. it would not harm job creation. we're also talking about the fact that we have to act now to help the economy grow, to help the private sector higher, and to ensure that firefighters and teachers go back to work. we need to act now to do that. the time frame over which the american jobs act would be paid for insurers that there is no negative impact in the short term. in terms of the costs involved. no, we very much believe -- again -- >> individuals making $200,000, that will not affect their spending habits? >> you are welcome to interview a economists about whether or not if you make more than $200,000 a year, whether or not itemizing reductions to create more tax advantage for you what

kind of thought that has on the economy. the need to take action to help the economy grow and create jobs is urgent. that is what the president believes we ought to take action. >> has the president spoken with john boehner on the details? >> i do not have any phone calls or meetings to read out to you now or nasty. i am sure there will be plenty of council -- i am sure there will be plenty going forward. i think he spoke about the american jobs act and the provisions within it. again, and this conversation, the legislation goes to congress wants congress did back in session. the conversation will continue once the legislation hits the gas. >> my question is, this is a lot

of deja vu. the administration was not able to get the republicans on board. why would the president think that republicans would agree with him now? >> the negotiations are run the debt ceiling crisis in which the speaker of the house and the president of the united states tried to reach a grand bargain on a three or $4 trillion scale in terms of deficit reduction involved both spending cuts, discretionary spending cuts, in tonnage reform, and tax reform. -- entitlement reform, and tax reform. the speaker did admit that he had agreed to the revenues on the table. we already passed and signed into law the roughly $1 trillion in budget cuts. you're talking about $4 trillion.

you cannot make it 5. it was always the case in the grand bargain that these were building blocks, discretionary cuts, and time of reform, tax reform, savings from interest, etc. the president is asking the congress to make choices. we simply do not have the capacity to pay for everything. to pay for special treatment and the tax cut for oil and gas companies. jobs for up to 280,000 teachers. we do not have enough to pay for a special provision in the tax code for corporate jets owners that does not apply to commercial jets owners. and also pay for the kind of repairs that schools across the country need. those are the kind of choices. he believes that the members of

congress went back to their districts over the august recess and got an earful from their constituents. because they are americans, they are fed up with what they're witnessing in washington. the political posturing, the gamesmanship, over theological -- over ideological imperative that most americans do not care about. they just want washington, at the very least, not to do harm to the economy. which washington did did this summer. more than that, they expect people they sent to washington to take positive action. that requires coming together and doing things in a sensible, balanced way. that is why the president put forward the american airdrops act. -- american jobs act.

if they take the imperative that they need to act on the economy now, they will take this legislation very seriously. >> polls are showing that the republican is the head and a special election in new york. it has been a strongly democratic district. [inaudible] can you talk about that at all? >> i do not know what the polls show in that race. obviously, special elections, a small turnout, circumstances involving why the special election is taking place all have an impact. i will simply point you to a statement that the prime minister of israel made the other day. about the historic level of assistance and cooperation and friendship that president barack obama has shunned israel. i think that answers the question.

>> -- has shown israel. i think that answers the question. >> are you banking on the idea that the political climate has changed? >> we are hopeful that that is the case. we are hopeful that as members of congress heard from their constituents and heard that they did not appreciate the willingness by some members to frighten the american and global economy -- and threaten the american and global economy and the impact it had on the economy in general, and the fact that we did not default. it affected the confidence of both consumer and business. they did not appreciate that. they do not want washington to make their lives harder. we have all seen that the economy has slowed, growth in

job creation has slowed, the intense focus the american people have on the need to address those issues has increased, as you would expect. i do not think they told. they probably heard what the president heard when he was in the midwest. washington needs to be sensible, the republicans and democrats think to come together and they need to take action on jobs and the economy. that is why the president has come back and put forward the american jobs act. >> on the tariff threat from last week, it anything more on that? -- on the terror threats from last week, it is there anything more on that? >> i think it was not useless chatter. it was a specific, credible threats.

because it was a specific credible threat, the actions that you saw agencies take or taken, which includes notifying local law enforcement of that specific threats, and i think that they continue to remain very focused on pulling all the threads on that threats and chasing it down. that is what we do with all specific and credible threats. we will continue to do it. we're obviously relieved the anniversary of the 9/11 went off without an incident. we knew, based on information that was gathered on -- dan osama bin laden's compound, al qaeda it remains interested in that specific date. we do not suddenly stop our

vigilance the day after. the vigilance continues. on that issue, the work continues. >> [inaudible] >> i am so mad about this. i lost my glasses. i was buying my son a bike for his birthday. i had my sunglasses. i think i put them on the bumper and drove off. >> you are blaming your son? >> i am planning my son. -- i am planning my son. -- blaming my son. i do indeed the new prescription back. >> so much of your strategy seems to be on a change of heart

by the republican party because they were read the riot act during the recess, have you seen any evidence whatsoever since they got back that that is actually the case? that you are dealing with a different political barmen? >> we have seen, as you have, some conciliatory messaging from some members of congress. that is a welcome thing. we think it reflects the fact that not that suddenly members of congress to might previously have reacted differently have suddenly decided that when this president says we need to do something, they will suddenly agree. because the american people, the people that elected them, are now telling them they need to do something. yes, we have seen some indication that the message of the american people is being heard by members of congress.

but we do not have any additions about the need to keep -- illusions about the need to keep focusing on that and to make clear that urgent action is necessary, the american people expect washington to take measures to grow the economy and help the private sector create jobs. we will keep of that conversation very aggressively. -- itust the back to becomes a question of choices. i think margaret was talking about this. you need to think of this in terms of the provisions that are set aside in the american jobs act, if congress were to pass a tomorrow, a you need those discrete measures to make that case. when you still look at the overall package in terms of deficit and debt reduction, you are still talking about a balance between cuts and revenue.

this goes to the trillion dollars of cuts that he signed into law. it goes to his commitment to deal with entitlements reform. and is absolute insistence that we may have to make the burden sharing fair. that goes to revenues and tax reform. you'll see this story continue as they go forward. >> by wednesday, the president will have done at five jobs speeches in just seven days. does he believe that congress was so persuaded when they were back at home? what does he need such tactics to sell his plan? >> you know as well as i do that in the world we live in, we do not -- this president does not command the nation's attention in the sheer numbers that a president used to it because of

the way our media works and the reality is as though the american people, so go the members of congress. we have to keep focusing everyone's attention on this because it is important. you do not simply say, -- i have been asked this question. your gasoline right, it is a campaign. the part -- you are absolutely right, it is a campaign. it is a campaign for growth and jobs. he is out there campaigning for growth and jobs. that is what he talked about in richmond, and that is what you will talk about tomorrow in columbus. i can assure you that you will continue to talk about it after that. >> [inaudible] >> he said across the land. yes. every corner. >> the present said this plan -- the president said this plan is insurance against a double-dip

recession. >> it is an insurance policy. we do not believe that we continue -- we believe that we will not experience a so-called double-dip recession. the fact that the economy has slowed, the fact that job creation slowed, makes our job situation less positive that it was six months ago. there is an unqualified need for greater growth. and greater employment. unqualified. that is true regardless of where this economy would go if you do not take this action. it is not acceptable for growth to simply say -- state at one% or for private sector jobs to continue, but not continue at the pace we need it to to get more americans back to work. it is an insurance policy in

that sense. >> is there a concern that if it does not pass, [inaudible] >> if it does not pass, and we believe it will, we would obviously forgo the boost to the economy and the boost to job creation that it represents. congress would have to go back at its next recess or at the end of the year and explain why they felt there was no need to take action on the absolute top priority of the american people have. >> i want to switch gears to foreign-policy. all the former saudi ambassadors talked to the palestinian bid for statehood at the un. if the u.s. does not support the palestinian bid for statehood,

saudi arabia would no longer be able to cooperate america in the same way that it has. security would be undermined. they would switch gears on afghanistan. we have talked before in a briefing about u.s. position that u.n. votes is not the right way to go. direct negotiations on the right to go. are you concerned about how the saudis will react? what are you doing both publicly and behind-the-scenes to prevent everything that it foreshadows? >> first of all, we have a lot of important relationships in the region around the world with countries that care very deeply about this issue. we will continue to handle those relationships can be mindful of the importance that they have for us. we have been very clear about the facts. the only realistic path for the

palestinians to realize their aspirations is through direct negotiations. a unilateral effort to achieve statehood at the un would be counterproductive. even if these actions are well- intentioned, they will not achieve statehood. for that reason, we continue to make clear that we oppose it. for that reason, we continue to make clear that the sides need to return to direct negotiations. that is the only path to the kind of solution that the palestinians rightly want. and that the israelis rightfully want. you have to do it. direct negotiations. you will not get it through the u.n.. >> are the things that could happen? >> i do not have any specifics with regard to an individual bilateral relationship. again, there are a lot of countries in the region who

understandably have specific interest in this. we sure that interest. we work with our partners are laterally and multilaterally to address this issue. we are very convinced the only way the palestinians will achieve their aspiration is to direct negotiations. >> just fallen on that, given the fact that turkey has billed itself as a great friend of the united states. are you not concerned that a u.s. veto would cause great harm to u.s. foreign policy in the arab world? does the white house still believe that it could be possible to come to some kind of solution that would permit palestinians not to go before the security council next week? >> i do not want to predict ahead of time what will or will not happen next week. i will restate what i said in

answer to the previous question. we obviously take these relationships for a seriously. we take concerns expressed by our friends and partners around the world very seriously. but we are absolutely convinced that trying to achieve statehood for the u.n. is counterproductive and will not allow the palestinians to achieve their aspirations. >> to follow and clarify, to avoid -- to what under cuttings the growth acceleration and job creation of your bill have you back loaded all or some of the tax increases they do not take effect in the next year, the defect later in the 10-year window? -- but take effect later in the 10-year window? >> is that what he said, in 2013? that is my understanding.

it is a born to go back and look at the grand bargain negotiations and the recommendations. nobody suggested in any of these approaches that we should be taking measures in the near term that might actually hamper growth, reverse cross, or reverse job creation. >> tax increases would not take effect until 2013? but that is what i understand to be the case. that is what jack said year-to- date. we will see more details when they submit the legislation. i think that exhausted my knowledge of it. >> you just said the president's starts --president starts out with this $1 trillion cuts that he already signed. is he going to offer details on what kind of entitlement reform and tax reform he wants? >> the president made clear that he would put forward to congress

and the select committee -- to capitol hill now, the house to gavel back in four legislative business. three bills on the calendar, including one dealing with the safety of federal judges. we do expect members to break again in order to attend a congressional 9/11 memorex ceremony. that is scheduled for 6:00 eastern time. we will have that life for you. >> i wanted to let you know that after the house is out, we are going to hear from president obama, who spoke in the white house rose garden today about his jobs plan. the associated press writes about it this way, that he was no politics, no delays. the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i am directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 1249, an act to amend 35, united states code, to provide for patent reform. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are requested. or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. recorded votes on postponed questions will be taken after 6:30 p.m. today. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition?

>> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2076, the investigative assistance for violent crimes act of 2011, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 121. h.r. 2076, a bill to amend title 28, united states code, to clarify the statutory authority for the longstanding practice of the department of justice of providing investigatory assistance on request of state and local authorities with respect to certain serious violent crimes, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. mr. gowdy: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on

h.r. 2076, as amended, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. gowdy: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gowdy: thank you, mr. speaker. violent crimes that impact multiple victims and mass shootings in particular are unpredictable. and in addition to sending shock waves through the communities impacted often test the resources on the state and local law enforcement jurisdictions involved. regrettably, within our lifetime there will be scores of mass shootings ranging from restaurants to high schools to universities and churches. no place is safe. there are no sanctuaries left any more, mr. speaker, in our culture and despite the tremendous training, education and hard work of the brave men and women in state and local law enforcement, these types of tragedies contest even the most well resourced law enforcement agencies. not only is there an act of crime scene with victims, there

are hundreds of pieces of ballistic evidence and the gathering of evidence sometimes contemporaneous with a search of the foreign assailant. there is collaboration between and among law enforcement agencies. this is true at the local level, the state level and indeed at the federal level. federal law enforcement agencies have unique skillsets, access to resources and other investigative techniques that can and do assist smaller police departments on a regular basis. but, mr. speaker, the current -- currently the f.b.i. does not have the specific statutory authority to assist in all investigations. specifically with requests to the investigation of mass shootings or other violent crimes occurring in nonfederal venues. h.r. 2076, the investigative assistance for violent crimes act of 2011 is a commonsense bill that allows the f.b.i. to provide assistant to local and state law enforcement authorities if requested in

response to a mass shootle or other mass casualty. this bill addresses where the f.b.i. -- when the f.b.i.'s asked to assist state or local authorities with mass shootings or killings at a public place such as a shopping mall or a school. the f.b.i. has traditionally assisted state and local law enforcement authorities, but the statutory authority explicitly granting the f.b.i. jurisdiction is lacking. to be sure, the f.b.i. helps and is willing to help, but the absence of a specific statutory grant of jurisdiction, even jurisdiction by invitation, needs to be resolved. this bill is not an expansion of federal authority and it does not expand the authority of the f.b.i. any assistance from the f.b.i. must be requested by the state or local authority and agreed to by federal authorities. the f.b.i. will only assist when state and local counterparts ask for help and they agree to provide it. this legislation, mr. speaker,

is simple, but it is also critical. state and local authorities often look to the f.b.i. for assistance in handling large violent crimes but the f.b.i. must look to federal law to determine what authority it has been granted by congress before it can offer assistance. accordingly, h.r. 2076 gives the f.b.i. the specific authority to respond to requests for assistance from state and local law enforcement authorities when mass killings or other acts of violence are committed or attempted. h.r. 2076, mr. speaker, was passed out of the house judiciary committee by a voice vote with broad bipartisan support. this bill is also supported by the f.b.i. agents association, the volunteer professional association currently representing over 20,000 active duty and retired f.b.i. special agents. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this bill, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina reserves his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i

yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i begin by commending my colleague on judiciary, tray gowdy, for intro-- trey gowdy, for introducing this bill and being the sponsor of it, and i agree with everything that's been said. i'll insert my remarks. but i'd like to ask my colleague about a shooting i read about just today. it wasn't a mass killing, but some of these things are so awful. a 17-year-old young girl athlete shot mysteriously. do you see that that might be a role that we may want the

f.b.i. to be able to intervene in and if they are invited as well? the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from michigan yield to the gentleman from south carolina? mr. conyers: yes, i could and i do. mr. gowdy: i thank the gentleman from michigan, and i would tell the distinguished former chairman of judiciary, i am not aware of a single instance in my 16 years as a prosecutor when the f.b.i. was asked to provide help and didn't do so. and i know that my friend from michigan would want the f.b.i. to be on solid legal footing. so with respect to the shooting that you're referencing, and i fear i am familiar with that shooting. i believe i read about it. the tragic loss of life of a wonderful high school young lady who happened to be a tremendous basketball player, the f.b.i. agents that i know would gladly help in that case. if the gentleman from michigan wanted to provide a way for the bureau to help whenever

requested, i would be happy to work on that with him. mr. conyers: well, i thank the gentleman, and i think this is something that our committee might well want to look into because the general impression is that crime is going down. i assume that's accurate. but in some places it isn't. and i thank the gentleman for making sure that this assistance has -- from the f.b.i. has statutory basis which it hasn't enjoyed until now and i join with him in providing this assistance as a matter of law. and i urge the passage of the measure and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields back the balance of his time.

the gentleman from south carolina. mr. gowdy: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman from michigan, and i am prepared to yield the remainder of my time if -- and would allow the gentleman from michigan to go first if -- if he would like and i will yield back the balance of my time if he's inclined to do so. the speaker pro tempore: all time having been yielded, the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2076, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection -- mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. conyers: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays and remain standing until

counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2633, the appeal time -- collarification act of 2011, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2633, a bill to amend title 28, united states code, to clarify the time limit for appeals in civil cases to which united states officers or employees are parties. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. coble, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from north carolina. mr. coble: i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 2633, as amended, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. coble: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. coble: i want to thank the ranking member of the court subcommittee, mr. cohen, distinguished gentleman from tennessee, and the ranking member of the full committee, mr. conyers, the distinguished gentleman from michigan for having co-sponsored the bill. i introduced h.r. 2633 at the behest of the united states judicial conference in addressing a small problem that must be fixed or attended to prior to december 1 of this year. under the existing rules enabling act, the judicial

conference may develop changes to existing federal rules or procedure and evidence. the supreme court smits any agreed upon amendments to congress no later than may 1 of a given calendar year. the changes takes effect on december 1 unless congress intervenes during the interim. this year as part of its rules package the supreme court submitted proposed amendments to appellate rule 4 that clarifies the treatment of the time to appeal in civil cases involving a united states officer or employee. because the time to appeal in a civil case is set not only by appellate rule 4 but also by section 2107 of title 28 of the u.s. code. the advisory committee on appellate rules has proposed that the judicial conference seek legislation to make the same clarifying change to section 2107. appellate rule 4 and section 2107 currently provides that

the time to appeal is 30 days for most civil cases but that the appeal time for all parties is 60 days when the parties to the case include the united states, a united states officer or a united states agencies. -- agency. the problem is that current law is not clear concerning the applicability of the longer period in cases which the federal party is a united states officer or employee sued in an individual capacity. the proposed amendments in h.r. 2633 simply clarify that the longer period applies to such an individual or employee just as it does to the united states government or united states agency. a lawsuit against a federal officer or employee under these conditions require the federal government to decide whether to represent that individual. this requires time as the

government must evaluate the case, determine whether an appeal should be taken and ultimately obtain the solicitor general's approval. the proposed revisions to appellate rule 4 are on a glide path to december 1. it's important to promote the consistency between the rules and title 28 by ensuring that we enact h.r. 2633 which also takes effect on december 1. . the only change in the bill as reported by our committee is the inclusion of, quote, findings, closed quote, language developed by the senate judiciary committee. the main point of this text is to clarify that the 60-day period appeals to cases involving article 1 litigants, including members of the house of representatives and senators. this dish is entirely consistent with the legislative history of the bill and is fully supported by the judicial conference.

this will also help to expedite passage of h.r. 2633 by the other body. mr. speaker, this is a bipartisan legislation devoid of controversy, it treats federal litigants as fairly under the apell ant rules and as assists the courts in interpreting those rules. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 2633 and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i rise to claim as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: i begin by congratulating howard coble, north carolina senior member of the judiciary committee, who is the sponsor of this bill and agree with him entirely.

it was reported by our committee by voice vote and no amendment, his explanation is thorough and i appreciate his inclination for detail which had us make this important modification of appeal time clarification and i would at this point, mr. speaker, submit my statement for the record and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered and the gentleman from michigan yields the balance of his time. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. coble: i thank my friend from michigan for his kind words. thank you, john. and, mr. speaker, i also yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time having been yielded, the question is will the house

suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2633 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair -- mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i ask -- i ask for the yeas and nays on this measure as well. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. coble: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1059 to protect the safety of judges by extending the authority of the judicial conference to redact sensitive information contained in their respective financial and disclosure reports and for

other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 123, h.r. 1059, a bill to protect the safety of judges by extending the authority of the judicial conference to redact sensitive information contained in their financial disclosure reports and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. coble, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. mr. coble: i thank the speaker and, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and he include extraneous material -- and include extraneous materials on h.r. 1059 currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. coble: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. coble: i support h.r. 1059 and i again thank mr. conyers, the distinguished gentleman from michigan, for having sponsored

it. i also thank mr. cohen, the distinguished gentleman from tennessee, mr. johnson, the distinguished gentleman -- gentleman from georgia, for having served as co-sponsors. this promotes an important goal that is providing security for federal judges. under ethics in government act, judges and other high level judicial branch officials must file annual financial disclosure reports. this requirement increases public confidence in government officials and better enables the public to judge the performance of those officials. however recognizing the nature of the judicial function and the increased security risks it entails, congress also enacted legislation that allows the judicial conference to redact statutorily required information in a financial disclosure report whether release of such information could possibly

endanger the filing or his or her family. those seeking to harm or intimidate federal judges might use a disclosure form to identify where someone's spouse or child works or requests to school on a regular by a -- or goes to school on a remember -- on a regular basis. targeting judges for harassment have also been known to -- or individuals targeting justices for harassment have also been known to file false leans on properties owned by judges and their families. harassers could use financial exposure reports to more easily identify such property. the judicial conference delegated to its committee on financial disclosure the responsibility for implementing the financial disclosure requirements for judges and judicial employees under the ethics of the government act. the committee monitors the release of financial disclosure reports to ensure compliance

with the statute. in consultation with the u.s. marshall service, the committee also reviews and approves or disapproves any request for the redax of statutorily mandated information where the filer believes the release of the information could endanger the filing or his or her family. under the regulations, no redacks will be granted without a clear nexus between a security risk and the information for which a radaction is sought. the law has worked well through the years and has been re-authorized twice since 2001. but it expired at the end of this calendar year if we fail to act, an outcome that is unacceptable. last year the marshal service investigated and linesed almost 1,400 threats -- analyzed almost $1,400 threats to judicial officials, nearly three times as

many threats recorded in 2003. and there were more than 3,900 incidents and arrests at u.s. court facilities in 2010. financial disclosures are an important part of maintaining an open and transparent government, mr. speaker. but government transparency should not come at the cost of personal security for government officials. judges and other judicial employees perform important work that is integral to our democratic system of government. in order to preserve the integrity of our democracy we must protect the integrity of our courts. and that means ensuring the security of judges and other judicial employees from intimidation and threats. in conclusion there's new evidence that the law is being abused, i support h.r. 1059 and urge my colleagues to extend the reduction -- redaction authority

permanently. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina reserves his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i rise to yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: and the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to commend the chairman of the judiciary, lamar smith, as well as the subcommittee chair, mr. coble, for swiftly moving this through the judiciary committee. i think it's been explained, the redaction of sensitive information for the benefit of members of the judiciary is obvious and important and i am hoping that with my consultation with the chairman of the senate judiciary committee, we would be

able to make the permanent feature that howard coble has discussed, a permanent one and a part of the law as it now exists. i will put my statement in the record at this time and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, and the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. coble: mr. speaker, i as well yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time having been yielded, the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1059. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection -- mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays on this vote as well. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested.

all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1 the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 6:30 recognizesthe

gentleman from which is currently >> we are on the road with our c-span digital bus. it is washington, your way. the c-span networks. created by cable, provided as a

public service. >> ladies and gentlemen -- >> president obama smoke this -- spoke this morning about his jobs plan. the president said the only thing that would block its passage would be lawmakers saying that it was not good politics. >> it is wonderful to see all of you here. on thursday, i told congress that i will be sending them a bill called the american jobs act. well, here it is. [applause] this is a bill that will put people back to work all across the country. this is the bill that will help our economy in a moment of national crisis. this is a bill that is based on ideas from both democrats and republicans. this is a bill that congress

needs to pass. no games, no politics, no delays. i am sending this bill to congress today. they ought to pass it immediately. [applause] standing with me this morning our men and women who will be helped by the american jobs act. i am standing with teachers, all across america, teachers are being laid off. it is unfair to our kids and undermines our future and it is exactly what we should not be doing if we want our kids to be college ready and prepared for the jobs of the 21st century. we have to get our teachers back to work. let's pass this bill. [applause] i am standing here with veterans, we have hundreds of

thousands of brave skilled americans who fought for this country. blasting they should have to do is to fight for a job -- the last thing they should have to do is to fight for a job when they come home. we are standing here with cops and firefighters, whose jobs are threatened when states and communities cut back. this bill will keep firefighters on call, cops on the beat. let's sign this bill so that these men and women can continue to protect our neighborhoods, like they do every single day. i am standing with construction workers. [applause] highways are backed up, airports are clogged, millions of unemployed construction workers

can rebuild them. let's pass this bill so that they can all head back to the job site. there is plenty of work to do end this jobs bill will help them to do it. let's rebuild america. [applause] and there are schools throughout the country that desperately need renovating. we cannot expect our children to do their best in places that are literally falling apart. this is america. every kid deserves a great school. and we can give it to them. s this bill, we put construction crews back to work across the country, repairing and modernizing at least 35,000 schools. i am standing here with small business owners. they know that while corporate profits have come back, small

businesses have not seen profits come back. they are struggling, struggling to get the support they need to grow. it cut your payroll tax in half. all businesses can write off investments that they make this year and next year. instead of just talking about america's job-creators, but actually do something. there are a lot of other ways that this jobs bill, the american jobs act, will help the economy. a tax credit for companies that help anyone spending more than six months looking for a job. we have got to do more for those folks who are working every single day. it is why we need to extend unemployment insurance and extend the temporary work to help upgrade their skills. it will help hundreds of thousands of disadvantaged young people find summer jobs next

year. helping them to set the direction for their entire lives. it would prevent taxes from going out for middle-class families. if congress does not act, just about every family in america will pay more taxes next year. a self-inflicted wound to that our economy cannot afford right now. let's give the typical family a $1,500 tax cut instead. [applause] and the american jobs act is not going to be the end of the day. it is fully paid for. i want to repeat that. it is fully paid for. it will not add one dime to the deficit. next week i am laying out a plan to bring down the deficit further. a plan that lives by the same rules that families do. cutting out things that we

cannot afford to do in order to afford the things that we really need. a plan that says every one, including the biggest corporations and wealthiest americans, have to pay their fair share. so, the bottom line is that when it comes to strengthening the economy and developing our books, we have to decide what our priorities are. keep tax loopholes, or put teachers back to work? tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires? or an investment in infrastructure? we know what is right. we know what will help businesses stay here, higher here. but if we take the steps outlined here, there is no reason why we cannot sell more

goods around the world. made in america. three words. that is what we need to do. jobs right now. i have to repeat something that i said in my speech on thursday. there are some in washington who would rather settle differences through politics in the election, rather than resolving them out. joann by callow we were looking at one of the washington newspapers, supporting a republican, saying that going in with obama right now is not good for politics. that is the attitude. sure, we have been through these things before, but not right now. the fact of the matter is that the next election is 14 months away. the american people do not have the luxury of waiting 14 months

for congress to take action. [applause] folks of living week to week, paycheck to paycheck. they need action. the notion that folks would say that we would not try to do what is right for the american people because it is not convenient for politics, we have been seeing that too much around here. that is exactly what folks are tired of. that is ok when things are going well. it is not okay during a time of great urgency and need across the country. these are not games we are playing. folks are out of work. businesses are having trouble staying open. we have a world economy full of uncertainties right now. in europe, in the middle east,

some events may be beyond our control. but, this is something that we can control. whether or not we pass this bill or not, whether or not we get this done, it is something that we can control. lots of folks talk about uncertainty in the economy. this is an uncertainty that we can avoid. taking action to make sure that we are helping the american people. if you agree with me and what congress to take action, i will lead everyone here, everyone watching, you have to make sure that your voice is heard. make the case. these ideas are bipartisan and

common sense. it will make a difference. that is not just my opinion. economists have said that this could add a significant amount to our gross domestic product, putting people back to work across the country. so, the only thing stopping it is politics. [inaudible] [applause] we cannot afford these same political games. not now. i want you to pick up the phone, send an e-mail. use an airplane sky rider. [laughter] dust off the fax machine. or you could just like to write a letter. so long as you get the message to congress. send me the american jobs act, so that i can sign it into law. get something done. put this country back to work.

thank you very much, everyone. god bless you. [applause] ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [applause]

♪ >> president obama will be travelling across the country, talking about his jobs package. making stops in columbus, ohio, tomorrow. raleigh-durham, n.c., on wednesday. he will be putting pressure on lawmakers to pass the bill. telling you about a congressional 9/11 remembrance ceremony to be held on capitol hill at 6:00 p.m. eastern time. we will have live coverage on c- span.

more from the house, later today. members are taking a break right now. they will be back at 6:30. as always, live, here on c-span. republican presidential candidates are holding a debate tonight in florida. c-span 2 will be there live to get reaction from the campaigns. this begins at 10:00 eastern. the joint congressional deficit reduction committee meets tomorrow on capitol hill to talk about the history of deficit reduction and what makes the current situation different, as well as what is driving the need to cut federal spending. live coverage of c-span 3, tomorrow morning at 10:00 p.m.. more on deficit reduction with the former co-chair of the deficit reduction commission and a debt reduction clan that was presented last september. alan simpson, the former white

have -- white house chief of staff, erskine bowles. >> thank you. good afternoon. good thing we are starting. spending too much time with alan simpson just makes you laugh and laugh. thank you for joining us. i run the committee for the responsible federal budget. we are here to release a letter. we just had over 50 experts in fiscal, budget policy, heads of the treasury and budget office's, signing on to it, all for urging the super committee to work on finding $1.20

trillion to $1.50 trillion in savings over the next couple months, to take this mandate of theirs, not easy on its own, but to make it larger. the thinking is that coming up with at the level of savings they have set up, it is not sufficient to stabilize the debt so that it is growing as a share of the economy. it would not be sufficient on its own to reassure markets or ratings agencies. what we really need to do is bring together a bipartisan plan that would tackle the largest parts of the challenge. really, looking at all parts of the budget to put in place, once and for all, a fix for the situation. we are pleased today to be able to release the letter. it will be available on the web site. we have been joined in this effort by bob rubin's, christie

whitman, pete peterson, dave cody, pete domenici, laura tyson, judd gregg, bob kerrey, and most importantly, the two former co-chairman, erskine bowles and the house and sen. -- and alan simpson. putting a plan in place to stabilize the economy is one of the most important things that we can do as an economic growth and recovery plan, adding more stability to the business environment, leaving space up front to create jobs and grow the economy, tackling long-term drivers of the debt in a way that will not be able to be addressed until we go back again put together a full plan. looking at what has happened over the past month, we have had

numerous deadlines. we almost had a government shutdown at a government default. each time we had a squeaky plan that moved the ball forward that was never enough. we kept going to the lowest denominator. what we have done is bring together a bipartisan and diverse group to urge the committee to go big, to the highest level, putting a fixed. we will talk to erskine bowles and alan simpson about why they are lending support for the super bowl to put together a real plan to go big. >> thank you. we are available to talk about these plans with the council. this is a difficult task.

the above have to get an expert here, an actuary there. everything is available to them. it is critical that we realize that it will be very, very difficult. but, we recommended for dollar trillion in 10 years. do not forget, so did the president. in his speech at george washington, he came up with a $12 trillion figure over 10 years. this is an interesting thing that people have forgotten. $1.20 trillion is, frankly, peanuts, as they used to say in the grandstand. they will lead to go for more than that. if they do not, this terrible will come. it will come from defense, have of it. everyone will be getting out their dictionary to see if they

can spare themselves. i will leave that to leon panetta, over in the defense department. he will do that himself. give him enough rope and he will do the things that he knows how to do. so, we cannot let it go to that. but, we are there. we are not geiger's. we are mentors, but not on toward. we know that four were on the commission. we know who they are. good people. you go, sir. >> thank you both very much. we are glad to be here. we do want to encourage these commissioners to go big. to be bold.

i know that in washington is difficult all at once. -- as i fought back to the 1990's, when we did balance the budget, we did that do it -- we did not do it all at one time. under two different presidents, with multiple congresses. so, it is thought. fortunately, back then we have the luxury of time all you have to look for is fluctuation in the market on a day-to-day basis. we also need to do it to restore public trust and restore the

trust that with loss and i think that america lost much of a confidence and trust of the people in countries around the world. we have a chance to get it right now. and i have said that we did not get to that number, but no. 4 on the street, it is the minimum amount that you need to do to stabilize the debt and put it on a downward path as a percentage of gdp. it will be tough. i have spoken and 59 that have.

they use members to understand the gravity of a situation. they understand the gravity and how important it is for us to resolve this problem. i am optimistic that they will build big, for a couple of reasons. first and foremost, there are a couple of good ideas out there. and the other groups had to come forward if i had ideas and they do that have to get 80%, like we did on our commission, to advance something to congress.

do not forget, we have a super majority. third, i think that the politics if you look at the polls, a majority of republicans, thou art mets and in the and and that -- >> and that gives it -- >> and that gives me hope, so much education as an forward. if they do not come forward with a solid report, there is pain that will come as a cut to defense and non-defense.

thank you very much. >> are there any questions? >> hello. i am cindy, from taking over this note the plan to be paid for mostly through eliminating deductions and tax breaks for the wealthy, corporations. any war in which to make a that and those were a couple of questions. >> first of all, it would be irresponsible for anyone to

support a stimulus that was not paid for in his cab and i am i do not know how. there will be a lot of opportunities and one of the things that be that that was deductions in credit. and you could be reducing the rates down to 8%, up to $210,000 with a maximum rate of 23%. you could take a corporate rate to 26%, going to a territorial

system on his pacific -- and his proposals. the second question dealt with why i am optimistic. across the country we have met with 40 to 50 different groups separately and together. any time that we have had a chance to talk to people about this, we have got not only a standing ovation, but whether it is a liberal group for conservative group, they understand the necessity. does it mean that you have to have all of your cut smell?

but it does mean the can address this and this brought us and of attention and i think they are putting pressure and in the fed they have no trouble with guests and charts on the road during if you spend $1 to borrow 42 cents, they say, you have to be stupid. today, your government has borrowed for dollar trillion, $600 million. every day. you have got to be goofy to do that. we tell them that. we just say, look, there is where we are. someone asks -- what is $1 trillion?

we do not want to get into religion, but one man said that if he spent $1 million per day since the birth of christ, you would not be at $1 trillion yen. another called it the big bang theory that is where we are. changing the b 28 t, getting it out. >> i was wondering, when you got [inaudible] [unintelligible] >> i think that the good thing in this current piece of legislation is that in the first

part, it is $900 billion in cuts, 350 out of defense. the second part is this $1.50 trillion that the super- committee is supposed to do would all the funds could come from revenue, all the funds could come from defense or spending impediment. so, we can stabilize the dead the next day, reducing it as a percentage of gdp, putting our fiscal house in order. >> great britain, germany,

france, and if we do not do that, watch out, all of the cards will begin to court -- crumble. >> if we are only one to go in incremental changes, focusing only on that year, and you have no strategic plan for stability, but if you put in place a multi- year plan, it buys you breathing room for the economic recovery to take hold, locked up with other at odds with economic recovery or is it because until

now have been unwilling to do? doocy any indication that that is changing? >> we have had responsible judgments on all of that. we are not saying be sure to take our proposal, but we are saying -- are you ready? the heat is on. this is the first pliocene in politics where there is real key. and for us to reach this grand bargain, everything will hao